“DE CONCILIO’S CATECHISM,” CATECHISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By Biff Rocha UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December, 2013 “DE CONCILIO’S CATECHISM,” CATECHISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM Name: Rocha, Biff APPROVED BY: _________________ William L. Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor _________________ Sandra Yocum, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _________________ William Vance Trollinger, Jr., Ph.D. Faculty Reader _________________ Michael H. Barnes, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _________________ Patrick W. Carey, Ph.D. Faculty Reader ii ABSTRACT “DE CONCILIO’S CATECHISM,” CATECHISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM Name: Rocha, Biff University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. William L. Portier The history of the Baltimore Catechism has been written largely by its critics. This work will provide a review of how catechisms developed over time, and the position of the leaders of the catechetical renewal. These new catechists characterize the creation of the Baltimore Catechism as hurried and lacking effort. A brief introduction into the life of the compiler, Fr. Januarius De Concilio, is followed by a closer examination of the text seeking to highlight some elements of originality within the work. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . i i i INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF CATECHISMS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH . .. 8 CHAPTER 2 THE CREATION OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM . 38 CHAPTER 3 THE NEW CATECHISTS . .75 CHAPTER 4 DE CONCILIO AS A PASTORAL THEOLOGIAN . 115 Phase I Italian Years (1836—1860) . 115 Phase II Seton Hall Years (1860—1870) . 124 Phase III The Americanist Years (1870—1898) . 130 CHAPTER 5 SISTER MARY CHARLES BRYCE’S STUDY OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM .160 CHAPTER 6 A NEW SOURCE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM . .187 CONCLUSION . 212 WORKS CITED . .218 APPENDICES A. Chronological List of De Concilio’s Writings . .241 B. Summary of Comparable Study . 246 iv C. Questions Identified by Bryce as Unique. 247 D. Comparison of Council Catechisms . 249 E. De Concilio’s Handwritten Journal . 253 F. Addressing Points of Criticism in Revised Baltimore Catechism. 254 v INTRODUCTION Sherry Weddell, author of an Amazon books 2013 Catholic Best Seller, Forming Intentional Disciples, begins her work by affirming with statistics and polls, what many Catholics have long recognized, namely that the catechetical renewal which blossomed after the Second Vatican Council (Oct. 11, 1962—Dec. 8, 1965) has created generations of individuals unfamiliar with basic teachings of the Catholic faith.1 Weddell remarks, “I’ve listened to hundreds of Catholic leaders lament the failure of catechetics since Vatican II . Today we can presume hardly anything about an individual’s true beliefs and lived spiritual experience even when we are dealing with a baptized Catholic who attended CCD classes or received a Catholic education.”2 Writing in Commonweal magazine Catholic theologian John Cavadini points to the alarming void in American religious education. In assessing the cause Cavadini suggests it may be in part, “the generation of catechists who left behind the Baltimore Catechism in favor of experience- based models that eschewed passing on the doctrinal content of the faith.”3 1 The question of the effectiveness of the varying methods of catechetical instruction requires a quantitative analysis which is outside of the scope of this dissertation. As will be discussed later, the narration of the creation of the Baltimore Catechism has had an effect, and it is that narration which is of interest to this present study. 2 Sherry Weddell, Forming Intentional Disciples (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2012), 126. 3 John C. Cavadini, “Ignorant Catholics: The Alarming Void in Religious Education,” Commonweal (April 9, 2004) 12. 1 This timely dissertation sheds light on the evolution of catechetics by examining the history, criticisms and uses of catechisms; such a study focuses on the Baltimore Catechism (1885) but deals with current and pragmatic concerns. National and local catechisms are called minor catechisms, and they typically pattern themselves on prior catechisms and are superseded in authority by major or universal catechisms. After the Second Vatican Council, critics of the Baltimore Catechism suggested that the time of catechisms was past and that the genre itself was no longer of use to a multi-cultural society. The release of a new universal catechism, The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II (2000), suggests that the Vatican, at least, disagrees with the critics’ assessment and affirms the timeliness of this study. The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s popularity and welcomed reception among laity and many non-Catholics4 suggests that the critics’ assessment needs to be revisited. From my studies it appears that catechisms in general, and the Baltimore Catechism in particular in the United States, have been effective tools for teaching the Catholic faith. I am personally a product of the new catechists, having gone through my religious instruction during the catechetical renewal when the catechism was banished and instead we finger-painted and made collages. Having completed the program of Catholic religious education and having made my Confirmation, I was embarrassed to be on the wrong end of an argument with my public school freshman history professor concerning whether or not Jesus Christ was an historical figure. While I appreciate how the new 4 Several non‐Catholic authors have applauded the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a cogent presentation of Catholic beliefs. For example see, Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005) which devotes their fifth chapter to a praiseworthy assessment of the catechism. 2 catechists fought to make religious education programs pleasurable, I also believe that it would be useful if those religious education programs might use a catechism or some other religious literature to teach Catholic doctrine as well. The history of the Baltimore Catechism to date has largely been written by its critics. A leader of the new catechetical movement, Sister Mary C. Bryce uses her description of careless compilation by parish priest, Rev. Januarius De Concilio and the bishop of Peoria, Rev. John L. Spalding in hastily amassing a national catechism destined for the waste bin, to discredit the Baltimore Catechism and advance the agenda of catechetical leaders of the 1960s and 1970s to decrease or abandon use of the catechism. After its introduction into Catholic schools the Baltimore Catechism garnered much praise and proved itself to be a useful tool for the religious education of American Catholics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In the context of how the catechism's history has been told (which was overwhelmingly positive for eighty-five years, then suddenly shifting in the nineteen seventies), and focusing on De Concilio's role in its production, this dissertation argues that the Baltimore Catechism was a serious catechetical work, produced by De Concilio with the end in mind of becoming the new national catechism. The widespread use and general lack of criticism till a certain point in the telling of its history suggests that the disparagement of the Baltimore Catechism by the new catechists was done mainly to advance their methods and thoughts on religious education. The characterization of De Concilio in his creation of the catechism is inseparable from the effort of the new catechists to discourage the use of catechisms in modern religious education. 3 The first chapter of the dissertation looks at catechesis, starting in the New Testament, into the Patristic period and through the Reformation. The invention of the printing press greatly accelerated the creation of handbooks for religious education. By the nineteenth century in the United States it was a cultural expectation for a newly appointed bishop to authorize a new catechism for his diocese.5 The fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Nov. 9, 1884–Dec. 7, 1884) argued that to combat the problems associated with so many numerous and varied catechisms, one national catechism should be published to bring unity to Catholic religious instruction in the United States. The second chapter reviews the available accounts of the creation of the Baltimore Catechism. Initial references to the authorization of the Baltimore Catechism were found in biographies of bishops and took for granted that the catechism was a success. Thus the account was woven within the greater story of the life and achievements of a bishop or cardinal as one of his many praiseworthy accomplishments. However a dissertation written in 1970 by Sister Mary Charles Bryce at the Catholic University of America draws a different conclusion about the Baltimore Catechism, questioning its quality, popularity and effectiveness. Bryce was one of a handful of new catechists and expresses the thoughts of this school of thinking popularized by the Catholic University of America. Accounts on the Baltimore Catechism subsequent to Bryce’s dissertation are negative in tone and evaluation. The chapter examines the shift in attitude and presentation of the history of the catechism that emerged