Aquinas and More. Good Faith. Guaranteed.

Comments on Catechesis of the Good Shepherd

by Ian on June 10, 2006

We have heard on occasion about the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd and I found the program in a catalog today. If you have any experience with this program could you please provide input? Is it orthodox? Does it really teach the Faith? One of my concerns is that I found it in the Liturgical Training Publication catalog. LTP has never been known for its orthodoxy so seeing it there makes me wary.

{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }

Marion January 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm

Children’s choirs often wear robes and I don’t think anyone thinks they are blurring masculine and feminine. The main purpose of the robe (as I understand it) is to remind children of their baptismal garment. It also provides a uniform look and minimizes the differences between rich and poor. Especially for girls, the cost of a dress can be a significant expense for the family. Competition can get out of hand. Until fairly recently (mid ’70s) school children in Europe wore smocks over their clothes until about the age of 10- one reason was to protect the clothes- the other to minimize class differences. These smocks were worn by both boys and girls. I have Greek and French relatives who have told me about them. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was part if the original idea in using robes for first communion.

Reply

Kristine H. Graunke March 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

This is the most wonderful approach I have found in communicating the Faith to children. It gives young children the essentials needed for them to form their own relationship with Jesus, and it roots older children (6–9) in the love of Christ which continues to nurture them as they expand their horizons and explore Scripture, Creation and the Liturgies of the Church.

Reply

Liz April 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Please excuse my error in the above writing . I placed the word incompetent in place of the correct word incumbent for parents and trusted educators to teach truth and knowledge to our children. Correct knowledge is learned not infused on its own as Montessori and Cavalletti proclaim, based on Theosophical thinking.
Respectfully Liz

Reply

Gianna April 13, 2011 at 9:50 am

Thank you Liz for your insightful writing. I was dismayed then the theistic evolutionary time line was presented in the Level 2 CGS formation classes. Beate, you stated that evolution was not taught in your atrium. but if you covered any part of the time line you entered into theistic evolution.

If you read through the “History of the Kingdom of God, Unity and Vastness of the History”, page 3 describes “a being, a little like us, which began to distinguish itself, but it was still very rough and of small intelligence. Then much more time passed before these things became truly human.” The narrative continues as mans intellect evolves enough to allow him to work with his hands.

The Fettuccia Ribbon represents 1000 years for each rib and as you describe the story of creation as the ribbon is unrolled, the children hear about how God prepared the earth before mans arrival. I do not object to this information but the content focuses on materials of the earth and not the spiritual dimension tied with the story of creation. “Montessori’s View of Cosmic Education” by Mary Hayes details Montessori’s Cosmic Plan, Cosmic Vision and Cosmic Education which is adapted by Cavalletti and found in all of Sofia Cavalletti’s books. On page 13 Teilhard de Chardin’s name in mentioned, but I am not familiar with his writings to know how much of her thinking and teaching he inspired. It was noted how clever Montessori was bridging religion and science together, by focusing in detail on the scientific aspects of matter “the order and harmony of the universe will be maintained through the correlation of the cosmic tasks of all the agents of creation.” Sure corresponds with style of GS reading material. Religion and matter are interconnected, a theistic evolution concept.

A discussion comparing and contrasting various church fathers or laboriously sighting the variations between Vatican 1 & 2 Papal Encyclical literature seems futile, as ones mind has already decided if the marriage of evolution and religion is valid.

Perhaps exploring the effect and change in traditional Catholic teaching, when mixing Catholicism and theistic evolution together is a better gauge of it’s effect on Catholic teaching. Previously mentioned, from other GS catechist, was the missing traditional creation stories Trinity, original sin, grace etc… . These concepts are mentioned in Sofia’s writing , but not as I learned them in what I called traditional Catholic teaching. It is clearly written in Sofia’s writing” adam ” was not one man, but one of many who eventually evolved into an intelligent being. She views original sin as a questionable concept since no other account of original sin exists in biblical writing.

Faith without original sin causes baptism to lose its traditional meaning, it becomes an initiation into a community. What happens to the Catholic dogma of Mary conceived without original sin? Personal sin, sanctifying grace and the supernatural loses credence along with the redemption of man through Christ. The evolution time line changes Christ from God-Man the redeemer to someone who initiated a natural evolutionary process.

CGS has implemented wonderful visual material to aid children in their learning process. I enjoy teaching our children the rubrics of the Mass and wish I could have learned Mass same way in my youth. The children love the pin maps and geography material, and the prayer service has assisted the children in prayerful thinking. As I went through GS training, I found it to be ecumenical in it’s presentations and lacking in specific Catholic traditional teaching . After reading RPC , I realize that is is her intent to present the material in an ecumenical fashion and join to Christians through the common bonds of salvation history, and scripture. This creates an ecumenical not traditional Catholicism tone for learning.

When theistic evolution and religion are mixed traditional Catholicism changes, for the ideology of evolution is a chain reaction which alters all of Catholic teaching . Theistic evolution is a religion unto it own. No longer are we created in the Likeness and Image of God ,the most basic Catholic or Christian teaching as this concept does not fit with theistic evolution. If you change the current GS time line and add the missing traditional Catholic material, various teachings would be taught different or included in the program, again this Catholic material no longer fits together with the ideas of theistic evolution.

I did not feel Liz was advocating against the GS program, but felt some traditional Catholics would not want included ideas of evolution their faith formation material. I feel the addition of theistic evolution and the presentation of material in an ecumenical (religion neutral) way misses the mark of solid Catholic teaching if no additional material is added to the curriculum.

Thank you Liz for coming forward with your information, you gave me the courage to add to a discussion which has weighed on my heart for some time.

Reply

Margaret August 26, 2011 at 7:50 pm

We have reworked the timeline and fettucia on our Atrium: Creation/Creation of Man (who is different because he has an immortal soul, not because he possess an opposable thumb), the Fall, Redemption/Incarnation (the central point in history), and the Parousia.

The emphasis on the “vastness of creation” is somewhat unsettling and lends itself to focusing on evolutionary ideas — not God’s loving creation, the creation of man in His own image and the Redemption. It is certainly not necessary to tell the children that each rib of the ribbon represents one thousand years — why would anyone say that when we don’t know and it is very much aside from the point.

It is possible to impart a good deal of Catholic doctrine when presenting the various works. Atrium is a concept that, in my opinion, can be well-adapted to faithful Catholicsm — the children learn much about the Bible and salvation history. They become familar with the life of Our Lord, His parables and teachings, the geography of his land and places he went — I thinks this helps develop a devotion to the humanity of Christ which is important for prayer. The work they do with the materials helps to develop mental prayer — entering into the scenes and thinking about what Our Lord did and said. Work well done with love for God and offered to God goes on in the Atrium — this is training for life. The children learn the Mass well — and more.

Reply

Gianna April 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm

Thank you Liz for your insightful writing. I was dismayed then the theistic evolutionary time line was presented in the Level 2 CGS formation classes. Beate, you stated that evolution was not taught in your atrium. If you covered any part of the time line you entered into theistic evolution.

If you read through the “History of the Kingdom of God, Unity and Vastness of the History”, page 3 describes “a being, a little like us, which began to distinguish itself, but it was still very rough and of small intelligence. Then much more time passed before these things became truly human.” The narrative continues as mans intellect evolves enough to allow him to work with his hands.

The Fettuccia Ribbon represents 1000 years for each rib and as you describe the story of creation as the ribbon is unrolled ,the children hear about how God prepared the earth before mans arrival. I do not object to this information, but the content focuses on materials of the earth and not the spiritual dimension tied with the story of creation. “Montessori’s View of Cosmic Education” by Mary Hayes details Montessori’s Cosmic Plan, Cosmic Vision and Cosmic Education which is adapted by Cavalletti and found in all of Sofia Cavalletti’s books. On page 13 Teilhard de Chardin’s name in mentioned, but I am not familiar with his writings to know how much of her thinking and teaching he inspired. It was noted how clever Montessori was bridging religion and science together, by focusing in detail on the scientific aspects of matter “the order and harmony of the universe will be maintained through the correlation of the cosmic tasks of all the agents of creation.” Sure corresponds with style of GS reading material. Religion and matter are interconnected, a theistic evolution concept.

A discussion comparing and contrasting various church fathers or laboriously sighting the variations between Vatican 1 & 2 Papal Encyclical literature seems futile, as ones mind has already decided if the marriage of evolution and religion is valid. Perhaps exploring the effect and change in traditional Catholic teaching, when mixing Catholicism and theistic evolution together is a better gauge of it’s effect on Catholic teaching.

Previously mentioned, from other GS catechist, was the missing traditional creation stories Trinity, original sin, grace. These concepts are mentioned in Sofia’s writing , but not as I learned them in what I called traditional Catholic teaching. It is clearly written in Sofia’s writing “adam “ was not one man, but one of many who eventually evolved into an intelligent being. She writes that original sin as a questionable concept since no other account of original sin exists in biblical writing.

Faith without original sin causes baptism to lose its traditional meaning it becomes an initiation into a community. What happens to the Catholic dogma of Mary conceived without original sin? Personal sin, sanctifying grace and the supernatural loses credence along with the redemption of man through Christ. The evolution time line changes Christ from God-Man the redeemer to someone who initiated a natural evolutionary process.

CGS has implemented wonderful visual material to aid children in their learning process. I enjoy teaching our children the rubrics of the Mass and wish I could have learned Mass same way in my youth. The children love the pin maps and geography material, and the prayer service has assisted the children in prayerful thinking. As I went through GS training, I found it to be ecumenical in it’s presentations and lacking in specific Catholic traditional teaching . After reading RPC , I realize that is is her intent to present the material in an ecumenical fashion and join to Christians through the common bonds of salvation history, and scripture. This creates an ecumenical not traditional Catholicism tone for learning.

When theistic evolution and religion are mixed, traditional Catholicism changes, for the ideology of evolution is a chain reaction which alters all of Catholic teaching . Theistic evolution is a “religion” unto it own. No longer are we created in the Likeness and Image of God the most basic Catholic or Christian teaching and remains as vital instruction for our youth. I did not feel Liz was advocating against the GS program, but felt some traditional Catholics would not want to include ideas of evolution in their faith formation material and add to the course study important Catholic teachings. Thank you Liz for your information. You may be connecting the dots for many people who are confused with the content of CGS materials. Your comments gave me the courage to add to a discussion which has weighed on my heart for some time.

Reply

Liz April 7, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Skimming through the comments from writers, the CGS Montessori style teaching is viewed in numerous ways. From absolutely orthodox to new age, I find the wide divergence in comments interesting. I will share my research with no intent to disparage those who warmly embrace the program, but to illuminate information I feel is important if discerning this method for your Catholic Church catechists program.
Oddly, my thoughts vacillated as others when I trained for the program. Struck by the hands on visual presentations, I felt this style wonderful in capturing the attention of the youth. Detail and attention to the materials presented, were well thought out. The view of the room and its physical content, divert one from noticing the fundamental Catholic material which is lacking. The theistic- evolutionary time line, poorly detailed sacramental work, and minimal traditional Catholic material was troubling and when questioned, was passed over and never discussed on several occasions.
With no answer to my questions and primarily glowing comments about the CGS on line, I did my home work and read in detail all I could find.
Maria Montessori was “Catholic” but when reading her life story she was not the traditional Catholic many trust and believe her teachings to be .
“ Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo: The Educational Vision of Maria Montessori,” will open your eyes to the culmination of her teaching philosophy and theories which she blends and implements into the Montessori teaching principles. “ Her faith was not merely sectarian it was a transcendental, mystical spiritually ….with “oriental” elements in her thinking. Read information from the Theosophical Society, this appears to be where she adapts the idea of a child learning their own faith, come to God by myself, and adults standing by with no interference. This idea is rooted in Hinduism. As a parent, I never allowed my child to create his own concept of moral or religious ideas. Following moral behavior depends not just on doing what is good, but to know the difference between good and bad. Knowledge that goes through the senses must be supplied by reason and intellect. It is incompetent for parents and trusted educators to teach truth and knowledge to our children. Correct knowledge is learned not infused on its own as Montessori and Cavalletti proclaim, based on Theosophical thinking.
Researching both Cavalletti and Montessori’s mentors,Teilhard De Chardin’s work permeates both Montessori and CGS teaching theories and presentation material in class rooms. De Chardin’s radical evolutionary teachings were banned during Vatican I and is sadly embraced by many through the Catholic teaching spectrum today. Nina and Inga noted important time line information, Adam& Eve, Trinity, Angles, grace, Noah ect. missing, this is no mistake on part of Cavalletti, who is defiling traditional Catholic teaching on creation.
Evolution dismisses the above stories and “History of the Golden Thread” Cavalletti chpt 9- 16 reveals De Chardin’s theories , that creation and the corresponding stories are literary genre, (not real) hence the hominid on the time line with other time line materials promote evolution not creation. Another major theological error of “no original sin” promoted by Cavalletti influences all of what is taught in CGS and does not end at the time line. These few thoughts only touch on the errors too many to numerate here, which violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The ecumenical flair and push of CGS “The Religious Potential of the Child” chpt. 14 grieves my soul. Missing from the program are vital Catholic doctrine, which will never be taught to our Catholic children I believe it is with intentional intent for it to be omitted, for it follows the evolution theory not Catholic doctrine. Cavalletti’s writings are seeped in Jewish history and mingled with Church Father theories to give the feel of authentic Catholic teaching. May I suggest and evening of research on Montessori’s (Cosmic Education) and De Chardin’s theories on evolution and faith and then read Cavalletti’s HGT book and you will become aware of the coupling of faith, earthly matter and spiritually in the writing. (Mans spiritual being and earth connected.)
CGS, presents with much eye catching material but remains deficient in Catholic doctrine essential to prepare strong faithful Catholic children.
What is orthodox teaching? Many adult catechists, prior to CGS training, know little about Catholic teaching, which leads them to view the manipulative material as orthodox along with other CGS teaching agenda . Some presentations are well done and on target with Catholic doctrine in CGS. Other Catholic subjects are missing and must be taught to complete authentic Catholic teachings.
My friends in Christ, please research this information and if you see valid points in my discussion, make adjustments in your program, give our children authentic Catholicism. It is with great sadness that many unknowing Catholics embrace this program, which plants the seed of evolution and the underpinnings which go with it. We are accountable before God and judgment will follow for those who teach error which lead others from the truth of Christs teachings, sins of commission and omission reside in the CGS program and must be addressed. May the CGS not become a sheep in wolfs clothing, denying the authentic tenets of Catholicism. May God lead you to a spirit of wisdom and right thinking. May God’s Blessing be with you and the children you faithfully teach our faith.

Reply

Bernadette April 10, 2011 at 12:14 am

Liz, thanks for your comments. As a level 3-6 catechist I think that the program is wonderful, and really plants the seeds for love of God. My children have attended and I can particularly see how it really helped settle one daughter’s strong and oft challenging character (who attended from 3-6 years) into an animated but settled child with a love of God that seems to have grown much without my influence. Of course, I don’t know what she would have been like without CGS, (hopefully the same!) but the individual experience of God that is unique to CGS is I believe a fundamental contributor. That being said, your comments are most valuable and it is extremely important – imperative, in fact, to give the other side of the coin – authentic Catholic doctrine true to the teaching and magesterium of the Church. Then the child can have the best of the individual relationship with God that CGS allows and nourishes but which is also backed up with an understanding and belief in God through doctrine and dogma, which will direct the soul further along than the content of CGS has the scope to do – especially in later years. The first without the second can lead to a faith that changes with individual interpretation, the second without the first can lead to a dry, intellectual faith that may just come tumbling down in time of challenge or trial, and which God intends (I think!) as this only the very beginning of His vision for us. As for the rest of your research, I know not what the true intention of Montessori nor Cavaletti and acknowledge the dangers of De Chardin’s teachings, it is certainly worth investigating and being very aware of, but the ideal I think is both CGS and knowledge and practice of the faith in all her precepts. I suppose in this way it’s best being both a parent and catechist able to offer one thing at the atrium and supplement the rest at home. But I will finish with one more thing; the experiential aspect of the atrium coupled with the mystery and attraction of many of the works and liturgical celebrations can help feed the child’s automatic attraction to the spiritual, and if directed correctly (as outlined above) may just decrease the danger of children getting caught up by esoterism/occult in later years as the current trends of the Harry Potter, Twlilight and myriad influences in media and literature are spewing out. But carefully carefully we go!

Reply

Beate April 9, 2011 at 9:07 pm

My 16 yo daughter has been my assistant in a level 1 atrium for the past two years. When she entered a very traditional and orthodox confirmation program at a different parish this past fall, she was surprised at how much she had learned along with the 3 – 6 year old children ;-) Her confirmation leaders soon found that she often had a greater depth of understanding the tenets of Catholic teaching than the more traditionally educated teens in her class. She has spent exactly one year in traditional ccd many years ago and at home our method of catechesis involved casual reading and conversation.

Yes, many people who enter formation are lacking in their own catechesis. Formation is a great start, but hopefully will leave the catechist thirsting for more. I’ve found that The Great Adventure Bible studies and the Scott Hahn books do a great job in validating and further explaining Sofia’s methodology.

Each presentation has a doctrinal point. Those in level one go hand in hand with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I’ve found myself questioning the wording of a doctrinal point, I have always found validation either in the Catechism, papal encyclicals, or in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.

Since it is a catechesis that isn’t handed down in a curriculum, there is of course the chance that it could become misconstrued by a misguided catechist. However, that can happen in traditional catechesis as well.

As far as evolution, it isn’t something that is taught in the atrium. Personally, I love the time line and found no disconnect between it and the writings of Pope JPII and Pope Benedict the XVI. Perhaps reading Pope Benedict’s books on the subject might be beneficial ;-)

Reply

Beate April 9, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Oops, I also wanted to add, if you’re worried about orthodoxy, consider going through CGS formation :-) And for anyone who wants to fall in love with scripture and liturgy – who wants to find how the two are inseparably linked, become a catechist! Personally, I’ve always loved the Mass, but becoming a catechist has been the impetus for entering into it even more deeply. When I was a kid, Easter Vigil was just oh so long – now I can’t wait for it to begin – all 5 hours of it at our parish! My kids also love the Liturgy of the Light they’ve experienced in the atrium :-)

Reply

seraphima April 14, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Friends,
Since I am Orthodox, and not Roman Catholic, I’ll have to leave the details of some of these dogmatic points to others.

For consideration, though, I wanted to say that we in our atria do not associate the ribs on the Fettuccia with a specific period of time. Nor do we have the hominid on our charts or ribbon. Rather, we reflect with the children on the vastness of God’s creative work, on the mystery of its unfolding, and of the immense love from which it sprung.

We do address the fact that they will hear different opinions: “Some people say that God created instantaneously; some say that God created in seven literal days as we know them; some say that God created over billions of years.” All these things may come to them through their schools, their friends, or their families. But no one can say for sure how God did it, because no one was there but God.

So instead of focusing the child’s attention on a particular vision of how creation unfolded, we focus their attention on God’s great love, which desired to create, and on the power and beauty God shows through that work.

We have had no issues by taking this approach.

Reply

Beate April 15, 2011 at 7:35 am

Yes Seraphina, I can relate to that. We don’t count the grains either and were taught not to during formation. I think the problem for some is that the timeline does inherently imply a longer period than six 24 hour days. Interestingly enough, that type of literalism is really a fairly new thing. Pope Benedict reminds us of the importance of seeing Creation as part of God’s cosmic plan, which CGS teaches perfectly :-)

Reply

Jessica November 13, 2012 at 11:23 pm

On the Fettuccia, I emphasize the work of God, rather than the length of time. However, there are still formation leaders who haven’t changed how they present it; or they refuse to change it. Very sad. Otherwise devout Catholics not staying open to all that the Church herself keeps open.

Reply

Jessica - Keys of the Universe September 9, 2012 at 8:56 am

Greetings!

Just to update everyone:

the Fettuccia and other history presentations have been updated to remove all references to specific amounts of time. Now they are to be presented in such a way that 7-day creation is possible as well as long-term evolution.

Remember too that the Catholic church has NOT make a dogmatic statement on evolution or 7-day creation or any combination or anything in between. Each of us are free to believe as our own reason and conscience allow.

HOWEVER I have always firmly believed that these sorts of discussions are NOT appropriate in the level 2 atrium. Stick with the theology. In level 3 it can be lightly discussed, but this whole topic of conversation is much more appropriate for high school.

The one thing that irks me about CGS is not so much the program as the National Association – they don’t listen to us “minions” (despite some of us having master degrees in theology, associates and bachelor’s degrees in child development, master degrees in Montessori education) when we say we want evolution OUT of it; but as soon as a nun (with all due respect) with the same or usually fewer qualifications mentions she wants it out, it’s out.

Weird. And a friend of mine says: cult-like.

I LOVE CGS. I am working towards being a formation leader myself; but I hope to counteract the cult-like tendencies that the organization has put into place – and emphasis the beauty of the atrium experience itself.

Reply

Kris Graunke September 12, 2012 at 9:29 am

I have used Catechesis of of the Good Shepherd with young children in various settings. What it does is to allow children to develope a relationship with Jesus of their own, and to experience a loving community in the process. There is nothing about it which is against an orthodox understanding of the faith, but it is not a “question and answer” approach. It is hands-on and interactive. It allows children to ask their own questions and make their own declarations of faith. Pope John Paul II, when visiting an atrium in Rome, commented that he had heard the most eloquent sermon ever preached when a young boy told him about the “Good Shepherd.”

Reply

Gia November 10, 2012 at 6:15 pm

The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation made it easy to find out what the Church has always taught about creation. Seven day creation dates to the Fathers of the Church, so that type of literalism was not something new, it’s quite old. Skimming through the list below, Cavalletti’s History of the Golden Thread corresponds with none of the Church teachings below. So if your not adding to your curriculum the children are missing important teachings.

What Does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
 God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
 Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
 Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
 Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
 Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
 The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
 The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
 Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
 After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
 Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
 The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
 We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or
morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
 All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
 The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been
created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
 St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
 The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
 Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
 Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
For more information contact:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

Reply

Jessica November 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Based on this list of teachings, I find that in level 3 of Catechesis of the Good Shepherd (where we study creation and the flood in depth, through typology) – there is nothing to be ADDED to what I am teaching. My only angst is that there is still too much of an emphasis on the possibility of evolution – thus I actually REMOVE statements and words in order to leave the door open.

What has happened is that because we were told by the Pope (someone please tell me which one) that we can choose to believe in 7-24-hour-day creation or an evolutionist creation so long as we believe that Adam and Eve were infused with a rational soul, then we are still within church teaching. Thus, despite the recommended “fixes” to some of the evolutionary stuffy, there are still hints here and there. Easy enough to correct within my own atrium spaces, but frustrating none-the-less.

Unfortunately, right now, our Church as a whole does not seem strong enough on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, in regards to many matters (headcoverings on ladies, 7-day creation, among other topics).

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: