Catechesis Is a Joke

I have never been good at telling a joke. Why? Because I usually remember the punch line but rarely know how to get there. A joke isn't just about the punch line, it's mostly about how you get to the punch line.

If you are good at telling a joke, then you are able to provide an engaging narrative that leads to the inevitable, wait for it, punch line. And we really must wait for the punch line to truly get the joke.

This is why I think catechesis is a joke. Catechesis is mostly about getting to the punch line. Catechesis relies on the narrative that leads one to eagerly wait for the punch line, which is doctrine. But if you start off with the punch line, the doctrine, then your audience won't get the joke, won't understand your point, won't get the catechesis. To do effective catechesis, you must be willing to tell it like a good joke. You must be willing to wait before you reveal the doctrine.

In my line of work, I see too many in the authority of the Church who are terrible at telling a joke. They are like me, they just get to the punch line too soon. Or worse yet, when they do wait to reveal the doctrine, they have little clue on how to get there.

A good comedian, like a good catechist, knows the situation, knows the audience, and knows the flow and timing of telling the joke. If your narrative is ignorant of where your audience comes from, then the joke falls flat. If your narrative is insensitive to the makeup of the audience, then the joke can fall flat too. If your style or presentation doesn't fit the joke, then it again will fall flat. Ultimately a good comedian knows the joke worked when the audience laughs. And most often getting the audience to laugh requires taking some well-thought-out risks. 

We as catechists must be patient on revealing doctrine. We must be willing to take some calculated risks. We must craft the narrative well so when we finally do reveal the doctrine, those listening to us will laugh. This is why catechesis is a joke.

The Beauty & Horror of Language

Have you ever imagined your existence without language? Is not language our greatest means of communication? How would we live without language?

Language, though natural to our earthly existence, is something beautiful to behold as well as a cause of much horror in history. A specific language might be the issue at hand, for it may not be adequate in describing or expressing what we experience. Too often the powerful use of language has resulted in heartbreaks, civil unrest, and global wars. Yet verbal and written forms of language have lead to reconciliation, many peace accords, and many loving relationships.

A man and a woman commit to a liftetime with unique spoken words, treasured as vows. Those vows are then translated in an incarnational expression through the language of their bodies. Two nations join forces with their written vows, documented as a treaty and are made incarnational througg mutual immigration and sharing of resource. Yet such language has also resulted in too many conflicts between individuals and between nations. Language has also led to divorce and war. The horror of that kind of expression of language is a culture of death. So in both the beauty and horror of language, we find its many forms, beyond verbal and written.

Language may be expressed in bodily actions that perhaps have a range more vast than verbal. We express in the language of our bodies so much more than what words can say. Beauty touches eternity when a husband and wife express their conjugal love, seeking to say to one another I am yours, my beloved, freely, fully, faithfully, and forever. The language of marital love is so potent, it can be procreative. What beauty marital love is that two become one, and in their oneness with God, new human life may come forth into the world. That is powerful and good.

And the power of bodily language can be found elsewhere: peaceful protests or violent riots, a gentle hug or punch in the gut, and many other obvious examples. Yet what happens when even our bodily language is confusing or contradictory? What happens when action and intent are not understood because others with whom we are attempting to communicate do not understand the language we are using. What does bowing down mean, for example?

Language is confusing but necessary, not a necessary evil, just necessary. Language seems to be more neutral if one considers it the medium upon which persons converse. Yet it is often misunderstood or misused because of its subjective aspect. Those person using the medium of language must synchronize or blend their use else neither side is understood. And that's why the confusion can quickly lead to unintentional horror or accidental beauty because of interpretation.

Language is most profound in its both beautiful and horrific results. The same medium, language, can lead to either beauty or horror,  depending upon its use by both sides of conversation. If both sides seek mutual understanding in their use of language, then beauty is born and expressed. Otherwise we live in horror.