Intentional Disciples
I’ve been a bit busy with other commitments and writing projects, so my blogging has suffered of late. But I wanted to briefly note the arrival of a new blog–Intentional Disciples–that is sponsored by the Catherine of Sienna Institute. The Institute is a program of the Western Dominican Province and is dedicated to equipping parishes for the formation of lay Catholics for their mission in the world. You may have encountered the “Called and Gifted Workshops” that the Institute has presented in many parishes around the country.
One of the co-directors of the CSI is a woman named Sherry Weddell, who entered Catholicism from evangelical Christianity. I would describe her as a “bridge builder,” someone who is deeply Catholic but also committed to preserving the best parts of her evangelical heritage. One of the reasons I like Sherry is that she asks questions that make me uncomfortable:
At every Making Disciples
seminar, we ask, “What percentage of your parishioners would you
consider intentional disciples?” Since participants are pastors, parish
staff and leaders from dioceses all over North America and elsewhere,
this always produces vigorous discussion and fascinating responses.
Usually we discover that no one present has ever thought about this
particular question before and it takes some wrestling to become clear
about what is being asked. What do we mean by the term “intentional
disciple”? Is an intentional disciple the same as a “practicing
Catholic”? How would you recognize someone as an intentional disciple?
And
then the educated guesses begin: Five percent? Ten percent? The highest
estimate so far came from members of a tiny parish with 350 members who
estimated 30% of their members would qualify. The grimmest assessment
came from a west coast-based group of leaders who together came up with
a startling ballpark figure: that probably less than 1-2% of their
parishioners were intentional disciples of Jesus Christ! They all
worked at big, extremely active parishes. And yet, the fact that most
members of their parishes were not yet disciples had escaped them until
that moment.
Over the past 10 years, I have worked
with hundreds of parishes in 70 dioceses and I can only think of a
couple that I wouldn’t call busy. Most appear to be busy seven days a
week. Every inch of available time and space is filled with people and
programs and yet parish leaders seldom ask, “What is the real, personal
and spiritual impact of our busyness? Are we changing the lives of
people?” We energetically move people through institutions and programs
but suddenly freeze when it is time to evaluate what is the actual
spiritual impact of our efforts.
Like I said, questions that make you uncomfortable. In a good way.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 am
I don’t think an intentional disciple is at all the same thing as a practicing Catholic. I think the obligations of a practicing Catholic are defined in terms of relationship to the broader community of faith, through participation in the scacrmental life.
It is the community that holds you up, throughout your life, no matter how intentional you feel about your faith on a particular day.
Intentional disciplehood seems, in this description, to focus more on the individual, to focus more on feeling, and to focus on active involvement in activities - in the way that it does seeem to be done in many thriving evangelical churches. Theologicallty, you;ve got a lot of pietism here, it seems, combined with an active commitment to ethics and doing things. It reads as if it’s old-style Methodisim.
I fear such an approach will alienate a lot of good, practicing Catholics.
I have significant andgrowing reservations about defining Catholic commitments in terms of a rubric appropriate to evangelical protestanism, without carefully thinking through the differences. . I think the ecclesiology is different, I think the sacramental framework is different, and I think the pattern of religious life is different.
I don’t think in the end, it will revive the Church– any more than the kumbaya massess of the 1970’s revived the church. Let’s get back to older ways of spiritual life– deliberate ways of formation. Why don’t the Domnicans have a third order that’s active among young people?
on January 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
I would be inclined to say that we are all called to be disciples, i.e., followers prepared to learn from Christ. I don’t quite get the “intentional” part. Would it be posible to be an unintentional disciple? Would that be the same as being a disciple without reocognizing the fact?
on January 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 am
It seems to me that “Intentional Disciples” is another rubric designed, cosciously or not, to divide believers into “us” and “them”, “us” being the Intentional Disciples (the cogniscenti, the illuminati, the true disciples) and “them” being the great unwashed, the lumpen-proletariat, the lame and the blind, the people who just don’t get it.
Is this what Jesus wants?
on January 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Here’s another description of this Institute:
re you tired of the “We Are Church” attitude of lay initiatives? Is your parish looking for a formation and support program that’s based one hundred percent on the teachings of the Magisterium? Then check out the Catherine of Siena Institute parish-based formation for the lay apostolate.
The institute was founded by Father Michael Sweeney, O.P., and Sherry Weddell and is an apostolate of the Dominicans of the West Coast. Since 1997, they have offered live workshops for over five thousand people in thirty dioceses in North America and Oceania.
The focus of the Catherine of Siena Institute is helping local parishes awaken lay Catholics to their missionary responsibility within the Church. According to the Second Vatican Council, lay people are “the people of God,” and they have been charged with the mission of bringing Christ into every nook and cranny of the secular world. We’ve been called to a New Evangelism, and serious discernment, formation, and apostolic support are necessary if lay Catholics are to respond.
To accomplish this goal, the staff of the Institute has read carefully every Church document regarding the secular mission of the Church and the office of the laity. Thus prepared, they are bringing the teaching of the Magisterium to the parish level. The Institute educates lay and religious people about the call of the laity, and then challenges all to act on that calling.
When the people of a given parish are taking seriously the gifts and vocation of every baptized person, increased religious vocations are one result. Says Weddell: “All Christians need to be formed and supported as they discern their vocation. Outside of this kind of environment, vocations wither.”
The kind of formation Weddell talks about is already available through third orders, lay movements, secular institutes, or certification programs sponsored by a diocese or university. But for ninety-eight percent of all Catholics, the only contact with the Church is at the local parish. This is where true formation, evangelization, and apostolic nurture and support must take place, and these don’t happen without time, energy, and leadership.
Generally, people simply haven’t read the magisterial documents, basing their ideas instead on what they may think the Church has said. According to Sherry Weddell: “Once people are presented with the fullness of Magisterial teaching, they are positively electrified!” The Institute leaves in its wake parishes with a new transfusion of the Holy Spirit. Thus empowered, people begin to take real initiative within their parishes.
So how does this all come about? “Discernment of charisms,” says Weddell, “is a good place to begin.”
The Catherine of Siena Institute offers several parish programs. The most popular program is the Called and Gifted Workshop. This two-part program focuses on the lay mission in the Church. A unique inventory of spiritual gifts helps participants to discern what their special calling might be. Armed with this sense of calling, lay people are taught who they really are in Christ: apostles, charged with the mission of bringing Christ to the secular world.
The Institute website is quickly becoming a virtual center for lay apostles. A quick trip to the site reveals almost every document the Church has issued regarding lay mission and formation. Over twelve hundred links cover the whole spectrum of lay responsibilities, including a huge list of resources for evangelization, apologetics, and human life issues, as well as a comprehensive and truly Catholic collection of links about women, art, music, and many other areas of apostolic endeavor.
Whether through parish programs or website resources, the Catherine of Siena Institute is moving forward admirably toward its goal: the equipping of parishes to become houses of formation for lay apostles.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Thanks to Peter Nixon for bringing the existence of this lay formation movement to our attention. I looked through the blog and explored some of the links on the Catherine of Siena Institute website. The educational links, though not exclusively to conservative Catholic sources, seem heavily weighted in that direction. Maybe the evangelical influence Cathy notes accounts for this. Maybe they are just more interested in “formation.”) Personally, I would hesitate to recommend a site that sends inquirers after further enlightenment without a word of warning to Opus Dei and Regnum Christi (Legionaries of Christ) sites. And their education links focus on the likes of Ave Maria and Franciscan U. in Steubenville. Surely there is richer, more stimulating and diverse fare out there for those who want to serve the Catholic Community in the lay state.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’m less than 100% certain Catherine of Siena would approve of all this.
I know there’s a debate going on as to whether the Church of the future is to be rooted in the traditional parish concept or in lay groups (some would say lead by a clergyman) who are the evagelizers of the world.
Didn’t we just here Paul talk about all being one body with many different gifts distributed by the Spirit as He wills?
I think Cathy is right on the number -we’re a Eucharistic community with all that entails first and foremost.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“We energetically move people through institutions and programs but suddenly freeze when it is time to evaluate what is the actual spiritual impact of our efforts.”
There is no real way to measure the ‘actual spiritual impact’ of any measures. Is she looking for an ‘altar call’ effect? God moves us and in our lives as the Spirit wills, not as we think should happen. A ’spiritual impact’ of any efforts may instantaneous or may take days/weeks/month/years to happen.
It is our job to make the effort and not really worry about whether we have been successful or not. Success may not happen in a way that we anticipate or expect.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Maybe it’s “the great unwashed” on the west coast, but where I come from it’s “the great unwarshed.”
:)
on January 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“Like I said, questions that make you uncomfortable. In a good way.”
I wonder, Peter, whether these questions *can* make us uncomfortable in a good way. The responses above suggest they only make us uncomfortable.
When discourse is discovered to originate from conservative precints we seem guarded, inclined to notice tonal differences, incapable of discovering resonance. It is almost as if our identity depends on distinguishing ourselves from ‘them.’ The energy seems to move toward deconstruction rather than understanding.
I miss any sense that our ecclesiology might merit some challenge, that we might have something to learn from Catholics who experience the church in a very different way than we do.
on January 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Intentional Disciple.” Seems redundant to me.
Peter was a disciple, even an “intentional” one. Yet he denied Jesus three times.
We’re all human and, thus, fallible.
I say I’m a Christian (Catholic, to be precise), but — sad to say — I have never considered myself a disciple, just a follower. And I fall down morally from time to time and get my face dirty (soul, to boot).
That word ‘intentional’ bothers me. Perhaps it verges on arrogance or “puffery” of some kind.
If I have a challenge, I think it is to be a disciple although I might likely disagree in good faith with some others about the content of same.
“If something hasn’t been done right, it hasn’t been done.” I think I’ve been a basically decent follower, sin notwithstanding.
I don’t know, however, if anyone down here is qualified to judge whether a “disciple” is being “intentional.”
Anyway…..
on January 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I’m finding the reactions to my original post interesting. Here are some more thoughts:
Many years ago Karl Rahner wrote that “the Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not be.” Many of Rahner’s writings stressed the need for Christians to make a personal act of faith in Christ in an age where the surrounding culture no longer transmitted the faith in the way it had in the past.
So I find the idea that “intentional discipleship” is somehow foreign to Catholicism an odd one. I may need to inform our parish council, which recently signed up for a second year of Disciples in Mission, a Lenten program created by the Paulist Fathers. The program allows small groups of parishioners to reflect on the meaning of discipleship in their lives. I’ll also have to let Cardinal Avery Dulles know, as in his fine book “Models of the Church”, he develops his own model of the Church as a “community of disciples” as a particularly appropriate one for our times.
I’m also coming to the conclusion that the one thing that seems to unite the left and right in the Church is a distaste for evangelical Christianity. As a Catholic, I freely concede that there are things about evangelical Christianity that I find problematic (e.g. ecclesiology, sacramental theology, sola scriptura, etc.). But my work in prison ministry has brought me into regular contact with evangelicals and I have come to have a strong respect for the ways in which many of them live their commitment to Christ. I have been deeply enriched by my encounters with thinkers like Stanley Hauerwas, Mark Noll, Richard Hays, and Amy Laura Hall, just to name a few. Fr. Thomas Rausch, S.J.—certainly no reactionary—has written that Catholics need to be open to learning more from evangelicals.
I don’t think we need to make a choice between parishes and lay movements. What are “communidades de base” if not a lay ecclesial movement? Parishes serve some needs well but not all. Some folks who struggle to feel spiritually at home in a typical parish find that their gifts fit well within a lay movement. As far as I can tell, CSI is a group that works with both parishes and movements.
I also have to say that I don’t think it’s fair to present Envoy magazine’s description of the Institute (the bulk of Cathy’s second post) as if it were some kind of self-description. I have never seen anything coming from CSI itself that had that kind of edge to it.
I’ll certainly concede that CSI leans more to starboard than to port. The vast majority of RE and lay formation programs that I have seen tend to lean in the opposite direction. What is so terrible? This obsession with putting people into ideological boxes—which ecclesial liberals and conservatives both seem to share—is destructive and has to stop.
Finally, on the issue of whether you can evaluate the effectiveness of various forms of ministry, I guess I just have to disagree with some of the comments. Do we really believe there is nothing that we do now that we could do better? One of the reasons that Sherry’s original post struck home with me is that I am part of one of those Catholic mega-parishes that invests an enormous amount of human and financial resources in various types of formation and education programs. Do we really think we should never ask whether that investment is yielding its desired effect?
on January 24th, 2007 at 5:14 am
A gloss from Galatians on Peter’s comment:
“If you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.”
on January 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I have to tell you, Peter, I don’t see an obsession with pigeon-holing in the comments on your post. Anywhere. I see skepticism. And, given the links Susan points out, I’m not surprised. And “why is that so terrible?” doesn’t quite do it. To my mind, what’s concerning isn’t the “leaning” itself, as it were, but how the leaning manifests itself. (The Legion, for example, has a lot to answer for–and I’m not just talking about Maciel. I’ve long fielded pained complaints from some who find their financial-growth practices morally wanting.) Also, nowehere in the comments is it suggested that we Catholics can’t do ministry better. So, to be frank, I found the tone of your reply oddly defensive. It’s entirely possible that I’m misreading you–and it seems as though you found the comments responding to your post defensive. I didn’t. Cathy makes a good point about the difference between being a practicing Catholic and an “intentional disciple.” I’ve heard the term “intentional” appended to Catholic communities as a way of differentiating them from the non-intentional ones of parishes. Or of communities on secular campuses versus Catholic ones. Usually, not always, it’s done in an insulting way, as in: Catholic communities on Catholic campuses are weaker in their Catholicity than those intentional ones at secular schools. That’s a canard.
on January 24th, 2007 at 8:31 am
But the trouble is, Bob, what counts as biting and devouring? Peter thinks something is good for the Church–helpful –conducive to growth — that I think is ultimately harmful, and will sow division. I think we’re having a discussion about that. If it’s divisive to discuss what is divisive than, well what do you make of the Council of Jerusalem?
If the practical question, would I want this group coming into a parish that I was responsible for, whose unity and charity I was responsible for, on the basis of my reading of their materials, my answer would be no. (I’m sorry Peter, I thought Envoy statement was theirs too–but my response is prompted by their website).
I, too Peter, have read many evangelical thinkers. I have learned a lot from all of the people you mention. But none of them, I’m sure, would say that an undifferentiated appropriation of evangelical thought would be good for the Catholic tradition. So the question, is, who is to do the differentiation? I lthink somebody who is bringing an evangelical strain into Catholic parishes– at the ground level — had better be highly trained in both theological traditions, as well as both traditions in liturgy. Ilooked without success, to see if Waddell has any extensive theological traiining. I couldn’t find any evidence of an MDiv. or a Ph.D. It says she has an MA, but I couldn’t see in what.
Now, to take on your points on Rahner. Rahner, of course, was concerned with personal acts of faith. What I would be willing to bet, however, is that the description of what counts as faith, as well as the shape of what the content of that faith is, would be in important respects different for Rahner and for someone who’s formation was in the evangelical protestant tradition. Read any of the Theological Investigiations on devotion to Mary, for example. A personal act of faith, his personal acts of faith, were sustained and supported, and to some extent mediated, by a long and rich intellectual and spiritual tradition that structured his prayer life and his thinking. It’s not just him and Jesus. For Catholics to say that we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is true–but incomplete.
My nutshell reading of the history of Catholic theology: in the mind 20th century we were too dependent upon liberal protestant thinkers; now we’re too dependent upon evangelical protestant thinkers.
on January 24th, 2007 at 8:41 am
One more thing: It’s not a “distaste” for evangelical Christianity, which is a coherent and highly respectable subtradition within the broader Christian tradition. It’s a real respect for the integrity of evangelical Christianity– and the integrity of the Roman Catholic traiditon of Christianity.
It’s a caution against 1) a too quick attempt to pluck bits and pieces of each and combine them into some sort of spiritual program; and 2), and most espcecially, sowing divisions within Catholic parishes because some “practicing Catholics” don’t want to be ome “intentional Catholics” along a syncretized evangelical-Catholic model.
on January 24th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“most espcecially, sowing divisions within Catholic parishes ”
Any evidence that this has occurred?
There’s a reason that some evangelicals are drawn to Catholicism — the history, the tradition, the Church Fathers, the great cathedrals and music — the sense of being part of something larger and more momentous than just a local church that some guy started in 1981.
But there’s a reason that some Catholics are drawn to evangelicalism — the sense of real community, the pleasantness of being around friendly people who are actually welcoming to visitors and guests, the energy of being around a lot of people who are excited about their *faith*.
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
My evidence for the divisiveness is 1) Peter’s description of the seminar. The very first question asks participants to evaluate the faith of parishioners. The result is terrible failure: 1-2% pass the bar, it seems. I can’t see how this mindset isn’t going to seep through in to the formation program itself, and to set those few formed against the mass of unformed; 2) the reaction on this blog; 3) some knowledge of human nature, in Catholic parishes and not.
By the way, in my case, it’s not the conservative or “orthodox” nature that’s the problem. It’s my worry about syncretism. If you want a parish mission preached with a Dominican influence, bring in Benedict Ashley, OP, bring in Reginald Whitt, OP, bring in Romanus Cessario, OP, bring in Michael Sherwin, OP I don’t agree with every jot and tiddle of what each of these three says, but they are all deeply formed in the Domincan tradition of thought and spirituality, and anyone would benefit from a parish retreat with them.
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“But there’s a reason that some Catholics are drawn to evangelicalism — the sense of real community, the pleasantness of being around friendly people who are actually welcoming to visitors and guests, the energy of being around a lot of people who are excited about their *faith*. ”
This is the rub. There is a profound lack of community in the Catholic church. Too often there are cliques who have access to the pastor and the general parishioners who attend once a week. So Christians who take the faith seriously are truly in demand.
Historically, these groups become coopted by the hierarchy which usually succeeds in making orthodoxy the hallmark of Christianity instead of discipleship. Innocent III knew he needed Francis of Assissi and he quickly moved in to make his followers more interested in obedience to the pope over spirit.
The charismatic movement of today is a good example. It began as very much into renewal while today it is mostly a bastion of orthodoxy, with Stuebenville leading the way. When Call to Action did not accede to the hierarchy’s mandates it was swiftly condemned. CTA was originally even developed by the bishops and today has recently had members excommunicated.
The Neocatechumenates were constantly lauded by Rome until many of its units wanted real community in the Eucharist not just sacramental fiat.
So discipleship should work and we should find a way to encourage and join fruitful movements. A danger sign would be that the spirit should be in control rather than those who tend to dominate saying “Father knows right.”
So this group can be dangerous in that it becomes a front for orthodoxy rather than a movement of the spirit. We need more movements of the spirit. I believe VOTF is a movement of the spirit. How do we get them to work?
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“I lhink somebody who is bringing an evangelical strain into Catholic parishes– at the ground level — had better be highly trained in both theological traditions, as well as both traditions in liturgy. I looked without success, to see if Waddell has any extensive theological traiining. I couldn’t find any evidence of an MDiv. or a Ph.D. It says she has an MA, but I couldn’t see in what.”
Doesn’t the requirement of an extensive theological training for institute leaders impose an awfully high barrier? Catherine of Siena might have a tough time getting past her theological betters. In fact she did run into trouble. And people are still debating whether she could write.
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Peter,
I want to thank you for this post. You and I have been around St. Blog’s for quite some time and, as always, I appreciate your reasoned reflections.
I don’t speak fo the Catherine of Siena Institute, and have no affiliation with them other than the pleasure of being a guest blogger at Intentional Disciples. Maybe that is why I have been so surprised by some of the reaction that Intentional Disciples has received. (Well, at least people are talking!)
I guess I would invite people to try and give us the benefit of the doubt before they pass judgment on us. You have a lot of voices on the blog. Converts and cradle Catholics. Laity and Ordained. Some involved with lay movements (like myself) and others who have never been.
I know that these words have been said many times over at Intentional Disciples, and some doubt them, but the blog is not about importing Evangelicalism into Catholicism. It’s striking how small mentions of something pertaining to Evangelicals leads some to see everything on the blog as being about Evangelicalism. (I’m thinking, for example, how one commentor saw a joke posted on Intentional Disciples, and instead of seeing the joke — about the humor of an Evangelical evangelization method having a title that speaks of the path to Rome — concluded that we were promoting adoption of an Evangelical evangelization technique.)
Give us a read. You might be shocked to discover that not only are we Catholic but we are trying very hard to not be ideological. Who knew that not wading into the traditional debates (liturgy, ordination, etc.) but focusing on making people aware of the vocation of the laity would generate so much heat?
As for the phrase “intentional disciples”. It is absolutely not meant to imply individualism to the denial of communion or to suggest that feelings are the full definition of what experience is. It is not meant to be “us” versus “them”. But it is an effort to remind *all* of “us” who “we” *all* are called to be. As Tom over at Disputations said, “I’m pretty sure the bloggers at Intentional Disciples use the term in a generic sense — you’re a disciple if you follow Jesus, you’re intentional if you do it with awareness.” That’s as good a definition as any from my own viewpoint. Intentional isn’t to suggest that we don’t sin or fall. It simpy is about that awareness of who I am in Christ. Consider a marriage. Which one of us would look at a marriage — where the two people live under the same roof, maybe share some earthly duties, but otherwise behave towards one another with no awareness of being one with the other — and not think that there is an awareness of who they are as a married couple that is lacking and want to call them to a greater recognition and appreciation of being in a spousal relationship? That’s the same thing we are talking about here. Altogether simple in one sense, but altogether a challenge in our present times.
Oh, and Dominicans do have an active third order. D.C. sees a lot of youth participating in their events, in particular.
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
My check on what’s appropriate to ask of people in theology is what’s appropriate to ask of people in law. There are — exceptional people who trained themselves in law — who learned the whole tradition by themselves, who are effective advocates. But by and large, most people benefit from some kind of formal introduction to a complicated tradition. And if I had to choose a lawyer, all things being equal, I’d choose one who went to law school, even if I was in a state where you could pass the bar without doing so. I don’t think the argument that Abraham Lincoln didn’t go to law school would hold much weight– there aren’t many Abraham Lincolns, and Abraham Lincoln lived a long time ago.
Catherine of Sienna is an exception for two analogous reasons. One she was obviously given a special call by God– she was a doctor of the church. Secondly, she lived a long time ago, where education of the sort I’m talking about wasn’t the norm or readily available.
We ask a great deal of priests in formation. Many years of study. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the same of lay people who are exercising a similar degree of spiritual authority to get the same type of training.
Bottom line: If someone is forming me, I want to know who formed them.
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
How is it divisive to ask “pastors, parish staff and leaders from dioceses” about the spiritual formation of their parishioners? Should pastors ever think or talk about such things?
“The reaction on this blog” — this is the problem with “divisiveness” arguments as a general matter. Anyone can accuse something else (whether in church, in politics, or wherever) of being “divisive,” based solely on the accuser’s own reaction. It becomes a circular argument: “I don’t like this thing, because it’s divisive. Why is it divisive? Because it is something that I don’t like.”
on January 24th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
By the way, Cathleen, you do realize that the seminar being described by Sherry (and quoted by Peter) is one that is conducted for priests, parish staff, and diocesan leadership, not general parishioners? Meaning, the point of the question isn’t about getting Joe Smith to start thinking, “Oh, I’m so much better of a Catholic than that guy who sits in the pew in front of me.” No, it’s precisely to have those who have been entrusted in a special way with the evangelization and care of the faithful to shake off any laikedaisical, everythings-fine attitude they might have, and actually ask the question: are we evangelizing the faithful?
on January 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Yes, I do. I still think it’s a problem. Leaders come away thinking, “98% of parish aren’t “intentional disciples”, which easily slips into “not-very-good Catholics.” So they start a program in their parish. It seems to me inevitable that the people at the program, by virtue of this implicit framework and the definition of intentional disciples, will start to tthink of themselves as the few over against the many.
Let’s remember where this started: Peter Nixon held up this particular program for our consideration, we didn’t seek it out. He also, implicitly, held it up for our admiration, and perhaps, emulation, with particular reference to the framework he cites in the main post.
I believe in formation. I believe in lay education. I believe this is a big tent in terms of liberal-conservative specturm. It’s a big church.
I just have my doubts about whether this particular program is the way to go, for the reasons stated.
on January 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
My few last thoughts:
-basic evagelization starts with “see how these Christians love another.” That means all.
And given the ptoblem of divisions within the Church, can one approach that emphasizes only one strain of contemporary Catholicism fit that mold?
I guess I’d see the “best practices” approach for a parish as say put forward by the National Pastoral Life Center -supported by many bishops -as the training initiative for pastors and parish leaders -with a goal of developing the gifts of all of Christ’s body in that area or center,
on January 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Cathleen,
May I make a suggestion — you rattled off a list of Dominicans that you implied some passing familiarity (and possible contact) with. Why not ask them their impressions of the Catherine of Siena Institute and its work?
on January 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Well this is getting lively…and interesting.
I didn’t feel my response to the comments was particularly defensive, but I’ll freely admit I was surprised by the tone of those comments. My response when I first encountered CSI was “Wow, this is interesting and innovative.” I liked the fact that the materials drew not only on scripture, but on the rich tradition of conciliar and papal teaching on the apostolate of the laity as it has developed over the course of the 20th century. I’ve also found some of the concrete tools that CSI has developed for the discernment of charisms to be personally helpful. One of the questions they ask is “do other people see this in you?” Sometimes we’re brought to a realization of a gift or vocation because other people see it in us before we do.
As to Grant’s question about whether people were “pigeonholing” the group, I guess I still feel that was happening. Those of us who move in these precincts understand that to link someone with “Opus Dei” or “Steubenville” is essentially to stamp a big red “C” on their forehead as a warning to others that “here be dragons.” I think far too much was being made of who was showing up on CSI’s weblink list. If that is the standard, my own parish’s website would probably fail the test.
As to whether it’s wrong to evaluate where our fellow parishioners are in their faith journey, I think that if we’re honest with ourselves we’d realize that we do this all the time. The parish “regulars” all smile wryly when the parking lots are filled to overflow on Christmas and Easter. The folks on the financial council grumble about why a parish with close to 4,000 families only has 350 or so who use envelopes. Priests wonder why people they’ve never seen before suddenly want a sacramental marriage or a church funeral. Deacons preach on social justice and receive angry e-mails that seem almost completely ignorant of Catholic teaching on the subject.
Indeed, I would say a key theme in the last century or so of Catholic history has been a recovery of the importance of the subjective dimension of faith. It was arguably one of the most powerful forces driving the Liturgical Movement, which saw “full, conscious and active participation” not only as an end in itself, but as a means toward imparting what the Constitution on the Liturgy calls “ever increasing vigor to Christian life” (SC 1). It also was a powerful force in the development of various forms of Catholic Action and of the various lay movements that emerged in the early and mid-20th century.
Are there dangers here? Most certainly, and Cathy alludes to some of them in her first post. We run the risk of equating discipleship with a willingness to spend large amounts of time at the parish. That is not the vision of the Church’s theology of the lay apostolate, and Cathy is right to raise that concern. But she sees CSI as leading people in that direction, whereas I don’t get that impression at all.
The concern with divisiveness is also real. My own parish has a large Cursillo community that provides a lot of the energy to parish ministries. Are there dangers there? Yes, but I believe they can be managed. I think that almost any program for parish renewal—RENEW, Small Christian Communities, Christ Renews His Parish—runs similar risks. I don’t see the risks associated with CSI’s work as appreciably greater.
Finally, while I also am deeply concerned that people who do parish formation be adequately formed themselves, the reality is that 90% of the formal catechesis that people receive at the parish level is delivered by relatively untrained volunteers. How often do we recruit CCD catechists by telling them “Hey, you don’t need to know anything, just follow the book!” Should pastors exercise effective oversight over formation programs? Of course they should. But if we’re concerned about the theological literacy of people doing formation—and we should be—CSI’s work is the least of our worries.
on January 24th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Hello everyone! I’m kind of coming in to this discussion late, but I wanted to add some further explanation. I should probably indicate that I am a guest blogger at Intentional Disciples and an Institute teacher of the Called & Gifted Workshops.
Cathy wrote:
I still think it’s a problem. Leaders come away thinking, “98% of parish aren’t “intentional disciples”, which easily slips into “not-very-good Catholics.” So they start a program in their parish. It seems to me inevitable that the people at the program, by virtue of this implicit framework and the definition of intentional disciples, will start to tthink of themselves as the few over against the many.
I respond:
But what if the underlying dynamic isn’t “the few over and against the many,” but rather the few serving the many. As JACK mentioned, the Making Disciples seminar is geared toward parish and pastoral leadership–those who have a particular responsibility for the formation and care of the community. It’s a fact that a majority of Catholics are culturally Catholic, moving through their faith out of obligation and lacking, as JPII has said in Catechesis in Our Time “without any explicit personal attachment to Jesus Christ.”
Identifying the issue and working on ways to address it isn’t divisive–and couldn’t be as long as everyone involved is rooted in their discipleship.
The ultimate goal of the Catherine of Siena Institute Institute’s is working at the parish level to help build structures and cultures that support the formation of lay people for their mission to the world.
The goal is not to have Called & Gifted or Intentonal Disciples(tm) communities within a parish, but rather to have parishes become Houses of Lay Formation where the gifts and secular vocations of lay people are taken seriously to accomplish the mission of Christ which He gave to the whole Church.
It’s fundamentally about equipping apostles for their work in the world. After connecting with thousands of pastors and lay pastoral leadership, however, it became clear that helping to foster and form disciples who were active and intentional about their faith was a necessary step to take.
Peter Nixon has done a great job of summarizing why the work of the Institute isn’t syncretism or “importing evangelical Christianity” but rather putting into practice the vision of the parish and the lay apostolate put forth by the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the continued teaching of the Church today.
It’s about communities of faith fundamentally orienting themselves toward fulfilling the mission of Christ that He gave to the whole Church. Part of that process entails approaching discipleship intentionally–nurturing, supporting, and forming lay catholics so that they can better integrate the graces of the sacraments, discern their own spiritual gifts *as well as help others discern theirs), and discover their own personal role in God’s plan of salvation. Not in a way that over-emphasizes the personal or individual, but in a way that roots the responsibility for mission firmly in the life of the lay person.
on January 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“Let’s get back to older ways of spiritual life– deliberate ways of formation. Why don’t the Domnicans have a third order that’s active among young people?”
Cathy wrote the above words and they certainly need explanation or clarification. Older ways of the earlier 20th century, renaissance, 5th century, fourth, third, St. Paul’s time??
The fathers of the church were wrong on a few things, to say the least. And the fourth century onwards brought a terrible exaltation of pastors over the rest of the community.
Learning is important but we are in deep trouble if we do not use discernment there also. Completion of years is not enough. And Jesus did praise the Father for revealing himself to the unwise . “…Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” Luke 10:21
Also, trained theologians are on opposite sides of many tenets in Catholicism. O’Brien, Kung, Rahner, Curran and Haring are very different than Ratzinger, Van Balthasar, to name a few.
So what are the ways to discern in this tent? Certainly, we should start with Matthew 25: 36-41. Or does some one have a better idea?
on January 24th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“Intentional disciplehood seems, in this description, to focus more on the individual, to focus more on feeling, and to focus on active
involvement in activities - in the way that it does seeem to be done in many thriving evangelical churches. Theologicallty, you;ve got a lot of pietism here, it seems, combined with an active commitment to ethics and doing things. It reads as if it’s old-style Methodisim. ”
I don’t know what you are talking about but what we are proposing is the joining of personal interior faith to assent to Church teaching and communion; the union of personal disposition to the sacraments as the Church has explicitly taught in great detail since the Council of Trent.
This is as old as the Gospels, folks, and as current as Benedict XVI’s address last week. It is Catholic to the bone and there isn’t a shred of originality – pietistic or otherwise - in it anywhere.
Intention: as in the integration of mind, heart, will, body, soul and spirit in a deliberate “yes” to Christ’s invitation to ‘follow me’. Not accidental disciples. Not unconscious disciples. Disciples as if you or I were Peter on the shore of the sea of Galilee and had the same decision to make to the same invitation.
“I fear such an approach will alienate a lot of good, practicing Catholics.”
Then You’ll be happy to know that we have worked directly with nearly 25,000 ordinary Catholics in ordinary parishes in 74 dioceses in 6 countries so far and no one seems alienated. I
n fact, since we have done no advertising and people only know of us by word of mouth from those who have already attended an event, the evidence would seem to point in the opposite direction. We are entirely self-supporting and have survived and grown for nearly ten years almost exclusively through “buzz” among lay Catholics and pastors, diocesan and parish staff. We don’t approach them, people approach us.
“Let’s get back to older ways of spiritual life– deliberate ways of formation. ”
We’re all for “deliberate ways of formation”. One could almost call them “intentional”.
One of the reasons that we emphasize the charisms of all the baptized is the avalanche of Scriptural patristic, Thomistic, and magisterial teaching on their importance. One post on our blog today is about the parish of St. Sulpice and its role in the revival of faith that took place in early 17th century France. We are deeply committed to seek answers to our current pastoral dilemmas in the fullness of the Catholic tradition, spirituality, and ecclesiology.
“I have significant and growing reservations about defining Catholic commitments in terms of a rubric appropriate to evangelical protestanism, without carefully thinking through the differences. . I think the ecclesiology is different, I think the sacramental framework is different, and I think the pattern of religious life is different.”
First of all, “intentional disciple” is not a term commonly used in the evangelical world. It is certainly not one I was ever exposed to. If you Google it, you will note that it is used mostly by mainline Protestants when used at all.
It is not an import of any kind. We adopted the phrase “intentional disciple” last summer after years of finding that the term “disciple” alone simply didn’t convey the union of “fides formata” (personal faith and repentance infused with hope and love that the Council of Trent insisted was necessary for justification) and sacramental grace to pastoral leaders.
After working with thousands of pastors, DRE, pastoral and diocesan staff and leaders all over the world, we knew we needed a term that was perfectly Catholic but just a tad unfamiliar. Unfamiliar enough to make Catholics think again rather than just progress down well-worn mental ruts.
Funny. I can walk through a detailed, carefully nuanced, and meticulously documented presentation on Church teaching on evangelization and people just look at me with glazed eyes. But if I use the term “intentional disciple”, they wake up. Some rejoice, others get pissed - but no one falls asleep.
And not being asleep would seem to be the first pre-requisite. So we have found it a useful term. But there isn’t anything sacred about it.
“I would be inclined to say that we are all called to be disciples, i.e., followers prepared to learn from Christ. I don’t quite get the “intentional” part.”
Absolutely. But see paragraph above. Many Catholic pastoral leaders didn’t get it when we used the word “disciple”. Perhaps it was too familiar to be heard.
“It seems to me that “Intentional Disciples” is another rubric designed, cosciously or not, to divide believers into “us” and “them”, “us” being the Intentional Disciples (the cogniscenti, the illuminati, the true disciples) and “them” being the great unwashed, the lumpen-proletariat, the lame and the blind, the people who just don’t get it.
Is this what Jesus wants?”
Wow. All I can say is 1) no, that is not our intent; 2) that this doesn’t seem to be the impact.
And we’ve done hundreds of workshops in places like Dodge City, Kansas, Ames, Iowa and Jakarta, Indonesia. Filled with workers in packing plants and farmers and secretaries and Mary Kay reps and you know, just ordinary Catholics. It just doesn’t happen. In fact, quite the opposite.
“Personally, I would hesitate to recommend a site that sends inquirers after further enlightenment without a word of warning to Opus Dei and Regnum Christi (Legionaries of Christ) sites. And their education links focus on the likes of Ave Maria and Franciscan U. in Steubenville. Surely there is richer, more stimulating and diverse fare out there for those who want to serve the Catholic Community in the lay state.”
Well, as long as Ave Maria and Franciscan U are in rightful communion with the church, we’ll link to them as we do to Pax Christi. As Peter pointed out in his original post: I do seek to be a bridge builder and not just between evangelicals and Catholics.
We are simply seeking to implement the teaching of the Second Vatican Council regarding the laity. If you have a problem with that, you’ll have a problem with us.
I will go anywhere I am asked if I can articulate the good news of the dignity, mission, gifts, formation, and vocations of the baptized. As a result, we have worked in the most liberal and conservative dioceses in this country and with dozens in the broad middle. We consider it a blessing that our work seems to transcend the usual culture war divides.
Both conservative and liberal Catholics like our work – although usually for different reasons.
We have done workshops and presentations for the Maryknoll missionaries, the National Association of Lay Ministers, the seminarians at St. Patrick’s seminary in Menlo Park and the students at the GTU in Berkley. It was Timothy Radcliffe’s active intervention when he was Master of the Dominican Order that brought us into being in the first place.
Usually I get these sorts of responses from very conservative/traditionalist Catholics so to read them here on Commonweal is more than a little ironic.
on January 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Okay, my last comment on this thread.
1. Peter posts a comment about Sherry’s program.
2. I expressed serious reservations, based on the comment. I appreciate Sherry’s fuller description of the program, but I continue to be skeptical about a description of intentional discipleship –whatever it is — that fails all but 1% or 2% of a given parish.
In a nutshell: Is it the description that’s the problem, or is it the 99% of the people you seen in church every Sunday that are the problem? Most of the people whom I see in church seem to be good Catholics –they are not spiritually asleep., alhtough they are overworked and very busy with jobs and kids. They’re trying the best they can.
My hunch is that the problem’s in the definition of intentional Catholics– which, since it’s catching so few of the parish members, I fear may be overlly influenced by the language, patterns of worship, etc. Evangelical Protestantism. But it’s a hunch, based on Peter’s emphasis of that aspect of the program in his post.
3. No one needs my endorsement to run a parish ministry program. So if the program works, pax vobiscum.
on January 24th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Blog on, Cathy. So far the dialogue has been pretty good. How else do we learn except from a reasonable exchange of ideas?
Sherry, we hope that your work will transcend the usual cultural world divides. You should, however, understand that the questions here were legitimate whether they showed understanding of your work or not.
Lo, I visited your site and find this unconditional embrace of ECT. http://blog.siena.org/index.html
To which I responded as many here might imagine.
Everyone here wishes you well and some may want to be a part of it. Hopefully, it will not atrophy and become another listless choice for parishioners
on January 24th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hello, I’m the other co-Director of the Catherine of Siena Institute, Fr. Mike Fones, O.P. I took the place of Fr. Michael Sweeney, O.P., when he was appointed President of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology.
I’ve been reading the comments on this blog and wondering how to respond. Sherry, JACK, and Keith have responded to most or all of the questions, so I thought I’d share a bit about how working within the Institute has changed my life, my understanding of priesthood, and the role of the laity.
An intentional disciple is what I believe an “active Catholic” should be. Someone who has a relationship with Christ that shapes the way they treat other people, forms the decisions they make in the workplace, market, home, and parish community. That relationship draws them to the Eucharist where they offer all that they have and are with Christ to the Father in the Spirit, and gratefully receive the grace that enables them to deepen that relationship. An intentional disciple recognizes the sins that separate him or her from the community and from Christ and renew their baptismal grace at reconciliation. An intentional disciple’s faith seeks understanding through reading and praying over scripture, other spiritual reading, and the teachings of the Church. The intentional disciple gives of themselves and their resources in joyful service to others.
About two years ago a thirty-four year old man at a parish where I help when I’m in Colorado Springs told me about a powerful conversion he had undergone. He blew me away one evening when, during a conversation, he paused, got a big smile on his face, and said, “Fr. Mike, let’s be saints!” I realized I had forgotten the point of this whole drama we’re living. The intentional disciple, I believe, is conscious of the daily invitation of Jesus to, “come, follow me,” and they intentionally seek to respond. Perhaps my description of the intentional disciple in the previous paragraph sounds like someone on the way to becoming a saint. I hope so, because that is our goal, isn’t it? I’m not talking about being recognized as a saint by the Church (we’ll be dead by definition, so what will we care?). I mean we should have the hope to be united with Christ and all those who are in him in eternity, and live as though that truly is our goal! Of course, it’s not something we earn, but a gift offered to us. But we have to cooperate with the grace that’s offered us throughout our days, and that takes intentionality!
And that’s why I think “intentional discipleship” is important. When we live with our end in mind, we live differently. I’m not promoting a “pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die” quietism that doesn’t care about the plight of the poor or the ravages of injustice. Quite the contrary. Intentional disciples are aware of God’s love for them as well as for everyone else who is alive, and they reach out in true charity – love- to those around them. We all know exceptional Catholics in our parishes and dioceses whom we admire. Do we desire that others should be like them? Do we want to be like them – not in the details of their life, but in the willingness to entrust our lives to God and see where we’re led? We enshrine saints in our stained glass windows and think of them as the exceptions, when surely Christ wants them to be the norm!
My understanding of priesthood and ministry has deepened. I am called to serve the Church (meaning all the baptized) by being an instrument of Christ to help sanctify, teach and govern the parish in such a way that more and more Catholics respond to the invitation of Christ to enter into a love relationship with him: to respond to the love he’s already shown them. That relationship cannot thrive unless it is nurtured in community by others who share that love, deepened by prayer, nourished by the grace offered through the sacraments, and expressed in love for others, especially the least and the lost who are Christ “in distressing disguise.” Everything I do as a priest must have that end, and every activity I engage in must be examined to see if it is effective in achieving that end. It means I have to stop thinking in terms of developing programs and focus on developing people. From what I’ve seen of intentional disciples, they will not only maintain the structures and programs we have, they’ll develop new, creative ventures not only for our parishes, but for the secular world in which we are inserted.
Unfortunately, I think as Catholics we do one another and the power of God a disservice by having expectations that are ridiculously low. For example, in 2001 the Campus Ministry sub-committee of the USCCB commissioned the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) to study the impact of campus ministry involvement on the religious beliefs and behaviors of Catholic graduates. What distressed me about the survey (and I realize good surveys are very difficult to produce) were both the questions asked and the results! The survey was based on the six aspects of Catholic campus ministry enumerated in a 1985 USCCB document called, “Empowered by the Spirit: Campus Ministry Faces the Future.” I won’t go into the details of the survey, although you can read it at http://www.usccb.org/education/highered/CARACMSpecialReport.pdf. The questions on the survey, I believe, were attempting to identify “active Catholics.” The results illustrate the relationship between participating in campus ministry during college and more frequent Mass attendance, higher parish registration, and greater involvement in parish and other religious activities. 40% of those who were involved in campus ministry attend Mass at least once a week, compared with 30% who were not involved. 17% of those involved in campus ministry reported they were “very involved” in their parish, compared with 8% who had not been involved in campus ministry. Yet among those who had the benefit of participating in campus ministry, only 34% said they considered helping the needy to be an “essential part of their faith”, and only 65% said that their faith was “among the most important parts of their lives.” The results were lower (27% and 52%, respectively) among those who had not participated in campus ministry.
I find the results distressing, especially since I devoted twelve years of my life to campus ministry. But I also find the questions distressing. When trying to determine the effectiveness of campus ministry in providing leaders for the future, the focus was on lay ecclesial ministry, religious life and priesthood – ignoring leadership in the secular realm. Also, the questions regarding leadership asked if the respondent had ever considered, these ministries, not whether, in fact, they had actually become leaders in those areas. Finally, and I’ll get off my soapbox here, the question regarding the importance of faith simply asked if faith was “among” the most important parts of their life. How does one interpret that? Is it among the top two? Five? Ten? Even when a respondent could expand “most important parts” to whatever size necessary to include faith, less than two-thirds of those who had participated in campus ministry managed to squeeze faith in. Is this what we mean by “active Catholic?” I hope not, and we dishonor Christ, the Gospel and the saints and martyrs if we do.
I am learning that as a priest I have to be aware of my own charisms (or spiritual gifts) to better know where Christ is calling me, and to know where I need to collaborate with those with different gifts. As a priest I am called, according to a number of different magisterial documents to “recognize, uncover with faith, acknowledge with joy, foster with diligence, appreciate, judge and discern, coordinate and put to good use, and have ‘heartfelt esteem’” for the charisms of all the baptized. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 30; Decree on Ministry and Life of Priests, 9; I Will Give You Shepherds, 40, 74; Lay Members of Christ’s Faithful People, 32) This is a radically different approach to ministry than I have witnessed, experienced or attempted. But this is rather ironic, since I didn’t feel called to priesthood because I wanted to administer a large, complex business called a parish or maintain programs irregardless of their effectiveness. I felt called to first of all be changed by Christ and his people, then to help others respond to his call and be empowered by him to change the world.
In my close association with the work of Sherry Weddell, Fr. Michael Sweeney, and their collaborators, I have followed the connections they have discovered in a host of documents that outline a challenging and Spirit-filled description of the mission of the Church, the integral and primary role of the laity in that mission, and the role of service to the laity that is mine as a cleric. It’s breathtaking and heartbreaking at the same time; breathtaking, because of its beauty, and heartbreaking because it is so seldom realized.
I am blessed to have been led by God to the Institute. I hope you consider taking a look at what I believe the Holy Spirit is doing through us. You might check out a pamphlet that Fr. Michael and Sherry produced called, “The Parish: Mission or Maintenance” on the untapped potential of the parish in the formation of lay apostles. Sherry wrote another pamphlet on the parish as a house of formation for adult Catholics called, “Making Disciples, Equipping Apostles”. They will help you have a better feel for what the Institute’s about.
on January 24th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Cathleen:
“description of intentional discipleship –whatever it is — that fails all but 1% or 2% of a given parish.”
First of all, this discussion goes in a 4 day training seminar for pastoral leaders. (200 pastors, vicar generals, diocesan and parish staff, lay leaders of all kinds from 60 different dioceses in the US)
The definition of intentional discipleship that we use when asking the question is
“. .the “good news” is directed to stirring a person to a conversion of heart and life and a clinging to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; to disposing a person to receive Baptism and the Eucharist and to strengthen a person in the prospect and realization of new life according to the Spirit “
- Catechesis in Our Time, 6
And this:
Many Catholics are “ still without any explicit personal attachment to Jesus Christ; they only have the capacity to believe placed within them by Baptism and the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
- Catechesis in Our Time, 19
Both question and discussion are very open-ended. We had no idea what people would say - it was an experiment, a way to somehow draw upon the immense pastoral experience of these leaders and find out what they experienced on the ground in their community.
We were surprised to get an average estimate of 5% intentional disciples. The 1-2% figures was the lowest single estimate (by staff from two huge west coast parishes), not the norm, and startled even me by its grimness. The highest estimate was 30% as Peter noted in his original post.
As my pastor with over 40 years experience, responded when I asked the question on the spur of the moment: “There are lot of good people in my parish who do some spiritual things.” But, in the end, his estimate of conscious disciples was the average 5% and he had not attended the training!
None of us is supposed to like it but I don’t see how I could just insist that they were wrong about their own community (which I had never visited, much less know deeply).
“In a nutshell: Is it the description that’s the problem, or is it the 99% of the people you seen in church every Sunday that are the problem? Most of the people whom I see in church seem to be good Catholics –they are not spiritually asleep., alhtough they are overworked and very busy with jobs and kids. They’re trying the best they can.”
No one is saying 99% of Catholics are spiritual asleep or not trying.
I think we need to recognize that there are a number of very real, valid, pre-discipleship stages of spiritual development that all represent a genuine response to God’s grace. We are not saying that these people are “bad Catholics” or had no spiritual life.
We are acknowledging that a huge number of Catholics, while having some kind of spiritual life, are not yet intentionally following Jesus Christ as a disciple.
I think though that in practice, most pastoral leaders have accepted any kind of spiritual movement, however vague or confused or momentary, as “enough” in itself. We do not think of these movements as graced step toward the end to which all the baptized are called, not just a few spiritual geniuses or a spiritual elite:
the “conversion of heart and life and a clinging to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”
And therefore, we do not fell responsible to consciously help others make that journey.
Our goal is to help leaders
1) learn how to ask respectful, open-ended questions that invite people to talk about their real spiritual journey to date,
2) to listen intently and well,
3) to recognize and affirm different levels of spiritual development and
4) to know how to respond pastorally to help people continue on to conscious discipleship.
on January 24th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Bill:
Keith’s comment was entirely focused upon something other than the war in Iraq. Neither he nor I are theocons, neocons, or paleocons or for that matter, “cons” of any kind. Keith wasn’t expressing any opinion at all about Neuhause or Weigel’s advocacy for the war because he wasn’t talking at all about that.
Indeed, the only way I even knew what you are talking about is because I’ve seen those terms thrown around on blogdom. Just like other aspects of the culture wars, on Intentional Disciples, we try to think first as Catholic followers of Jesus Christ and not primarily in other categories.
When we regard the war or any other topic, we try to make a serious attempt to think with the Church as best we can. While we all have our natural predispositions or kneejerk assumptions, they are not the final word. We also recognize that serious Catholics can legitimately disagree on the prudential application of Church teaching in a real world situation.
Therefore, posters on ID are asked not to impune the intentions or good will of other posters. We ask that you assume other posters mean what they actually say and not more or less and that you respond to what they have *actually* said or ask questions to clarify what they have said.
It is entirely possible to quote something that Richard John Neuhaus says without buying into any of his opinions or political beliefs.
on January 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Fair enough, Sherry.
If Intentional Catholics is what you say it is then it should be in every parish. It looks like something only the hierarchy can screw up.
on January 24th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I think that I see, and agree with, Cathy Kaveny’s worries. Just a few points. 1. I take it that the “conversion of heart” that we all should seek is a project that we can never entirely fulfil in our lifetimes. Trying to assess “how far we have progressed” is something we of course have to consider, but we must never conclude that we’ve found any kind of progress that could in any sense be measured by any human standards. No technique or program can change this condition.
2. In the end, our salvation is always from God, working where and when he wills. We all are permanently in the condition of supplicants.
Neither of these points implies that it’s a waste of time to try to develop programs or practices that encourage people to pay deeper attention to their relationship to God. But none of these programs, etc. is a “golden road.” All, like everything about the Church, can be perverted into a kind of pharaisism that whispers “I’m glad that I’m not like the rest of you.”
on January 25th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Sherry Weddell has summarized her goals as helping leadrers to:
“1) learn how to ask respectful, open-ended questions that invite people to talk about their real spiritual journey to date,
2) to listen intently and well,
3) to recognize and affirm different levels of spiritual development and
4) to know how to respond pastorally to help people continue on to conscious discipleship”
I personally find this whole ID philosophy to be somewhat annoying, When someone begins interrogating me about my “spiritual development” my first instinct is to ask, “Let’s see now, I forget: What is it that makes my spriritual development your business?” The last thing we need in our churches are cadres of spiritual ideologues buttonholing the good parishoners about their “spiritual development”, getting in peoples’ faces about “what level” they are at, and passing judgement among themselves about the progress of the non-Intentionals . God! How arrogant and condescending is that?
And who is it again that appointed these spiritual busybodies? Don’t they have spouses and/or children to attend to? Flee from them as from the very plague!
on January 25th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Bob wrote:
The last thing we need in our churches are cadres of spiritual ideologues buttonholing the good parishoners about their “spiritual development”, getting in peoples’ faces about “what level” they are at, and passing judgement among themselves about the progress of the non-Intentionals . God! How arrogant and condescending is that?
And who is it again that appointed these spiritual busybodies? Don’t they have spouses and/or children to attend to? Flee from them as from the very plague!
I respond:
How did we move from “respectfully asking open-ended questions that invite people to talk about their real spiritual journey” to interrogating someone about their spiritual development?”
How did we move from listening intently and well to recognize and affirm different levels of spiritual development (or, put another way, different moments on the spiritual journey)” to “buttonholing good parishioners?”
Why is the assumption, as Sherry has said in the past, that to ask is to judge rather than asking as a pre-requisite to serving them more effectively?
The Mystical Body of Christ is a reality, for all that it is Mystery. The experience of “communio” is far more than just theological language. Each of us is united to each other in and through Christ, who is our Head. We are saved as a People first and then as individual members of that People.
As baptized catholics, each of us is responsible for the spiritual and physical good of our brothers and sisters in Christ (as well as our non-baptized brothers and sisters) part of that has to do with care and concern for their relationship with the Lord. We are responsible for the salvation of each and every one of our brothers and sisters.
Lived fully, it isn’t about a power trip where the ones who “have it” lord it over the ones who don’t. Rather, it is about the recognition of our fundamental spiritual poverty and our reliance upon the Grace and Love of Christ. It is about opening our lives (gifts, talents, wounds, brokeness–all of it) for the sake of our brothers and sisters.
“For the Son of Man has come not to be served, but to serve.”
In addition, the Making Disciples seminar is geared toward pastors and lay pastoral leaders–people who either posses (or are delegated a share in) the duties and responsibilities of the pastoral office–to teach, to sanctify, and to govern.
That appointment comes from Christ Himself through the instrumentality of the Church.
I agree that what you describe is the “last thing we need.” That’s why I’m grateful that what we are talking about has nothing to do with what you describe.
on January 25th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Keith:
“Learn how to ask respectful, open-ended questions that invite people to talk about their real spiritual journey to date.”
And why, pray, is not this person asking himself the question? Is it because, having removed the crowbar from his own eye, he is now fully prepared to remove the mote from the non-Intentional?
“To listen intently and well,”
How can one do a decent interrogation without listening intently?
“To recognize and affirm different levels of spiritual development”
Spiritual level as defined by who? And by the way, what is a “spiritual level”?
“To know how to respond pastorally to help people continue on to conscious discipleship”
And who, pray, is monitoring the Interrogator’s level of “conscious discipleship”? And who monitors the Monitor? And yet again, what is the definition of “conscious discipleship”?
Its been my experience that the most saintly people I’ve known (and I’m NOT one of them) are doers, not talkers. Their “interrogations” consisted of sweet kindness expressed in so many ways, by a smile, a helping hand, a leg up.
Include me out.
on January 25th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Wow! Based on the above comments, a person might conclude that lots of Catholics aren’t that interested in living Christian lives.
on January 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
The practitioners of ID who have tried to explain their ideas and practices here seem obviously sincere and earnest. Yet the more they explain, the more “skeptical” I am about its merits for most people. (Thanks, Cathy: “skeptical” is just the right word.) Bernard Dauenhauer’s comments about the difficulty- if not impossibility-of measuring progress in our spiritual journey seem to me very wise. There may be many different paths to follow, some of them very difficult, even perilous. “The mind has mountains” as Hopkins put it. I think spiritual direction is a subtle art, with many dangers and pitfalls, not something for amateurs, even –or maybe especially–amateurs armed with a handy ID map of the territory.
on January 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I spent quite a while looking a the Intentional Disciples web site, both the posts and the responses. And I, too, remain skeptical and even offended. I think the notion that Catholics, especially those who are bringing up children to be practicing Catholics and live decent lives according to to the teachings of the Church, are somehow lacking or are in a “prediscipleship stage of spiritual development” is not only condescending, but misunderstands the essence of being Catholic.
on January 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Bob,
I get the feeling that you are determined to misunderstand the work of the Institute.
You wrote:
And why, pray, is not this person asking himself the question? Is it because, having removed the crowbar from his own eye, he is now fully prepared to remove the mote from the non-Intentional?
I respond:
First off, why do you assume that “this person” isn’t asking himself the question? Examining one’s spiritual life is part of intentional discipleship. Furthermore, in a functioning community of disciples, other people are assisting “this person” by asking those questions to him.
Again, why are you automatically viewing discussions of people’s spiritual lives as invasive?
You wrote:
How can one do a decent interrogation without listening intently?
I respond:
See, this is where I think that you are deliberately tryng to misunderstand.
You wrote:
Spiritual level as defined by who? And by the way, what is a “spiritual level”?
I respond:
Are you objecting to an attempt at categorizing the stages of the spiritual life? The Catholic Faith is filled with teaching and advice that seeks to clarify and highlight the stages of spiritual development. Seminary and pastoral formation talks quite explicily abot the stages of faith development and helps those being formed recognize the signs of each stage.
What we are talking about explicitly in relation to intentional discipleship is identifying a number of very real, valid, pre-discipleship stages of spiritual development that all represent a genuine response to God’s grace. These are moments along the jouurney of faith that are common to most folks. We seek to identify these stages not to lock people in to a category or classification, but rather to help us provide them with support and formation so that they can more deeply respond to the grace of God and move into a deeper relationship with Him.
It’s all part of the fundamental mission of the Church–to help bring people into relationship
with Christ through word and deed.
You wote:
And who, pray, is monitoring the Interrogator’s level of “conscious discipleship”? And who monitors the Monitor? And yet again, what is the definition of “conscious discipleship”?
I respond:
Again, both the individual in question and other members of his community are walking the journey together to help them all grow closer to Christ.
I get the sense that you feel that your relationship with Christ is no one’s business but your own. But that is a very ‘me and Jesus’ approach which is rejected by the Teaching of the Church and the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ.
There are authentic Catholic ways of living out this shared responsibility which honors the dignity of each person. No one is suggesting a busy body, holier-than-thou approach. Why is it that you are automatically assuming that such is the case?
Does not the “concept” of communio and the Mystical Body of Christ have real implications?
Who is, then “responsible” for your salvation?
on January 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Keith: You wrote:
“But that is a very ‘me and Jesus’ approach which is rejected by the Teaching of the Church and the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ.”
Perhaps unknowingly, you have now explicitly confirmed what I was saying. In this sentence, you have attempted to marginalize my own spirituality as anti-Catholic, while simultaneously including a genteel sneer at my ‘Jesus and me’ approach. This is, I repeat, so condescending and arrogant.
You’re not going to win a lot of converts to your elitist group with this approach, and those you do win will now be infused with the same annoying persona of know-it-all superiority. Sorry, I’m not buying it, not for a New York microsecond.
on January 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Laura wrote:
I spent quite a while looking a the Intentional Disciples web site, both the posts and the responses. And I, too, remain skeptical and even offended. I think the notion that Catholics, especially those who are bringing up children to be practicing Catholics and live decent lives according to to the teachings of the Church, are somehow lacking or are in a “prediscipleship stage of spiritual development” is not only condescending, but misunderstands the essence of being Catholic.
Laura,
You are absolutely right in what you have said. The thing is, no one involved at the Institute has said, or believes, anything remotely like what you have said.
The reality, seen through conversations and work alongside of thousads of pastors and pastoral staff, as well highlighted in the numbers themselves, is that most Catholics do not have an explicit personal attachment to Jesus Christ.
It’s not simply a function of randomness that most Catholics do not attend mass regularly, or that the second biggest denomination behind Catholicism in the U.S. are former Catholics. Tens of millions of Catholics have left the Catholic Church in the U.S. and they haven’t all done so because they found the Catholic Faith too hard. They do so because, for a variety of reasons, they have not encountered Christ within the Catholic Church.
What the Institute aims to do is to help pastors and pastoral staff build cultures and structures within the parish that form and support disciples who are intentional about their faith life–including support for people bringing up children in the faith. Part of doing so is examining the reasons why so many Catholics do not seem to encounter Christ in the Church and addressing those issues in a way that is rooted firmly in the Catholic Tradition.
I’m sorry if that sounds condescending. That certainly wasn’t our intent.
on January 25th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Bob wrote:
Perhaps unknowingly, you have now explicitly confirmed what I was saying. In this sentence, you have attempted to marginalize my own spirituality as anti-Catholic, while simultaneously including a genteel sneer at my ‘Jesus and me’ approach. This is, I repeat, so condescending and arrogant.
I respond:
Bob, I was responding to the underlying assumption (in your and others’ posts) that somehow what the Institute is about is not authentically Catholic. I was employing a rhetorical strategy to highlight the fact that the spiritual life is never only about ‘me and God’ and that the Institute’s emphasis on shared responsibility is, in fact, authenticaly Catholic.
Perhaps such a strategy was ill advised, because I certainly never intended to hurt you. As your brother in Christ I am SINCERELY sorry and I do ask your forgiveness.
You wrote:
You’re not going to win a lot of converts to your elitist group with this approach, and those you do win will now be infused with the same annoying persona of know-it-all superiority. Sorry, I’m not buying it, not for a New York microsecond.
I respond:
Bob, maybe you can help me a little. Knowing the folks involved in the Institute, and knowing that they are certainly not elitist, can you help me understand why asking about somebody’s spiritual life is automatically seen as condescending?
I mentioned it in my earlier post, but why is the assumption by many folks here that we automatically have the worst impulses in mind?
Thanks, and I’m sorry again about my comments.
on January 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Keith,
Even tho there are reams of pages in the history of the church about levels, I believe that those notions are elitist, artificial and self serving. Whether they were saints or sinners, it is uncalled for.
But I do believe that we should challenge each other to live better Christian lives. And if we declare our selves Christian we should be willing to bear witness to our faith for the love of neighbor and glory of God.
Over the centuries, being a Christian has lost its meaning. A Christian certainly desires a community of those who are disciples of Christ. Vatican II exhorted us to be conscious of our relatedness as people of God.
Cathy Kaveny wrote a stirring article on Prophecy and Casuistry. In that paper she acknowledged the need for true prophecy, noting that there is a lot of harm with reference to ‘false prophets.’
We do need true prophets to bring us back when we slide.
on January 25th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Bill,
I think we are in agreement about the belief in challenging each other to live better Christian lives. In fact, that’s what th Institute is ultimately about–helping parishes form and support their members so that they can live better Christian lives.
Anyway, thanks for your response. I have certainly taken away a lot from the discussions here.
on January 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Keith:
Apology gladly accepted! And please allow me to relent somewhat from my admittedly rhetorically strident remarks. I tend to be an edgy and excitable person; my wife frequently has to reign me in with gentle admonitions when I begin to foam at the mouth, which I do with alarming regularity.
As for asking about someone’s spiritual life seeming to be condescending, here’s my response, bottom line: I cannot imagine myself asking that question because I would instantly recoil in embarrassment; I am a person who struggles moment-to-moment with life’s temptations. I stumble through the Catholic Faith like a drunken homeless man at a Beverly Hills lawn party - its not pretty, believe me. I’m not psychologically capable of asking such a qustion.
And I’m not much for this “community” thing that is now the redoubt of the hipper-than-thou folks; this approach appears to me to diminish the uniqueness of the individual soul while merging everyone into a faceless amalgam of believers, a kind of fungible mass of humanity where everyone is enmeshed in everyone else’s life. Thanks, but no thanks.
on January 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I have been thinking about what the subtext of “intentional disciple” might be and this morning an idea came to me. Could it mean something along the lines of “disciple by personal choice” as contrasted with, say “disciple by cultural affiliation”? In other words does it envisage adding a personal, adult commitment to sacramental membership.
If anyone thinks I have this wrong, please don’t take it personally or consider it an attack.
on January 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Joseph:
Intentional discipleship: “does it envisage adding a personal, adult commitment to sacramental membership?”
Bingo. You got it.
on January 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Over the years I have come to the sorrowful conclusion that most Catholics I have met are “pious or semi-pious agnostics.” They have been sort of “Catholicized” but the underpinnings of this state are weak or non-existent.
Once these folks are disappointed/angered/hurt by “the Church” they equate “the Church” with God.
Another thing. If you go to an Evangelical or Pentecostal church you will inevitably find ex-Catholics who claim (true or not) that they didn’t learn about the love of God for them until they discovered their new church.
Catholicism is so large, and our parishes are, in the main, sacramental factories. There is little if any encouragement for individuals to dig deeper into their faith. A banal announcement from the pulpit or the bulletin about this or that program simply doesn’t get through to most folks. They show up on Sunday, get their attendance ticket punched, and get the hell out before the parking lot gets too bad. Hatching, matching and dispatching are the main events in their church lives.
I don’t know of the Siena program is better/worse than most of the rest, but, as a church, Catholicism is pee-poor at evangelism. We are quite good at immersing ourselves in the accidents to the deprivation of the substance.
on January 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Bob,
Thank you for accepting my apology. And no worries about foaming at the mouth. It’s nice that we both have someone in our lives (my girlfriend for me) that can help us put things in perspective. :)
We obviously disagree regarding the “community thing,” but I certainly have learned a lot getting to this point. I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions here.
God bless!!
on January 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Sherry:
I think some of the negative reaction you are getting arises from the sense that “intentional discipleship” seems to introduce something like what I take to be an evangelical idea, viz., the need for a personal and conscious commitment to Christ as Savior as essential to Christian membership, into an R.C. context in which membership is taken to be achieved sacramentally and holds unless one consciously rejects it.
on January 25th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
We can say that it is fruitful to take the best of evangelicalism and combine it with the best of sacramentalism. Not for politicial reasons but for the life of the church. Both are dangerous in the extreme but complement one another when done properly.
The reformation caused the church to retrench to much one way while the reformation lost sight of the Eucharist as central to the community.
The good news about the Good News is that we are unequaled in Christian history in that we live at a time when the best council took place and no one gets killed for demanding that pastors live up to their responsibilities.
To repeat what Greeley said the confused church is better than the confident church. People want to be more invested in their baptism and a passive leadership will lose many.
on January 25th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Bill,
Amen to what you said!
on January 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
What on earth is the “best of evangelicalism” and why do we need it in the Church. That’s the very definition of syncretism? I don’t mind an increased proclamation of the Gospel, etc., but I do mind and oppose syncretism. That’s what we’ve had for the last forty years. Why encourage more?
on January 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Laura,
I think what Bill may have meant (and what I definitely mean by my ‘amen’ to his post) is that there are things which are authentically Catholic which our protestant brothers and sisters have kept alive and at the forefront of their communities and which Catholic culture has de-emphasized or attempted to de-legitimize.
The importance and reality of the charisms comes to mind–as does the fundamental orientation toward mission.
He (and I) are not saying that there is something newly discovered in evangelicalism that should be “added in” to Catholicism. Rather, it’s a case of rediscovering or re-appropriating what is actually ours.
on January 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
And here is even more on this subject:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2007/01/unintentional_m.html#comments
on January 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I share concerns expressed by Cathleen Kaveny, Bob Schwartz, and others.
Is each of us called to be a disciple? On reflection, I myself would say not at all. Most of us are called to be followers. And, really, what is wrong with being a follower of Christ?
From the gospels, we know that Jesus commissioned disciples to go forth and spread the good news. We know from church history that various Christian communities cropped up here and yonder; they were “rooted,” so to speak, in an identifiable place.
Jesus taught people (not just the disciples) how to live what we today might call the Christian life. He gave suggestions; he admonished when necessary. I’d guess most of these people who accepted his message took it back to their homes, workplaces, etc. They did not “go forth&#