Gashwin Gomes, over in India, can read this blog, but can’t post a comment. Here’s his comment on the post below about catechesis and Biblical criticism:

When the General Directory for Catechesis came out (the one from the Vatican, in, 1997 I think it was), I read through it eagerly, and one of the things that struck me was this: the goal of all catechesis is union with Jesus Christ. I thought about what I’d seen, and it was quite clear: nope, this isn’t happening in the parishes I’m familiar with.

My first exposure to the historical-critical method was in a parish in Pune (India) where a Jesuit (then in his diaconate) was giving a class to the parish on scripture study. It was an overview of the historical-critical method. He used materials from the Jesus Seminar freely — at that time (I was taking classes to prepare for baptism that year) it was all very thrilling, even more so that the old ladies were getting shocked. What I remember clearly thinking was, "Oh! Well, if this is true, then I guess nothing (in the Gospels) is realiable!"

It did instill a love for Scripture study in me, and I discovered more traditional ways of studying (and praying) the Word of God later …

Years later (and after an MA in NT studies), I completely agree that an overemphasis, an almost gleeful,"we’re going to debunk everything you know" overemphasis on the historical-critical method has been part of the problem … it’s whole thrust seems to be, "The Church believed this for a such a long time, but now, we know the real story."

"I don’t care if Paul didn’t write it — it’s in the Bible, and for a Christian that’s what ought to matter, I recall telling a startled prof in class one day! :)"

Much more fruitful would be to actually get people/students/parishioners to read the Scriptures, to imbibe them, to seep in them. I am always envious of the converts from Protestant denominations who know their Scriptures backwards and diagonally. That kind of familiarity ought to be the goal … while discovering other ways of reading scripture, such as Lectio Divina. "Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ" right?

And please remember (because the comments down there are gettting off the rails) that my original post wasn’t a anti-scholarship post. Far from it. You should see the bookshelf behind the couch I’m sitting on to write this. Full of good rich stuff, most of it on Scripture. No, the question was scholarly theorizing and catechesis, and my remark was that it makes no sense to me to put theories about composition and sources front and center of adolescent catechesis and basic adult faith formation. Gashwin puts it well.