1970-1980:
The Decade of the Directories
I THINK it is possible and indeed legitimate to talk about the post?war
"catechetical movement" provided that certain specifications are made with
regard to the meaning of the expression. It is possible, for example, to
see the influence of certain catechetical writers such as Jungmann in the
development of the so?called German Catechism of the 1950s. even though
Jungmann's seminal thesis on the "kerygma" was developed in the pre?war
period. The English?speaking world was largely "catechised" towards a kerygmatic
catechesis by the work and writings of Hofinger. The first critical or
at least cautionary writings about the possible dangers of too much concentration
on a uniformly kerygmatic catechesis were the work of Nebreda in "Kerygma
in Crisis".1 In the French?speaking world. the monumental work of Joseph
Colomb helped to change the direction of catechetics in France even though
he himself, and later Coudreau and others. were strongly attacked
and denounced at Rome for advocating directions we would now consider normal.
There is evidence of a "movement" of ideas which transcended borders of
nation and language and tended to spread more widely through the Church.
Much of this movement of ideas was facilitated by the post?war catechetical
institutes begun in Paris. Brussels, Nijmegen and Munich. The students
attending these centres were not necessarily from the host country, but
frequently and increasingly came from all over the world. To this
movement of ideas through people, there should be added the important growth
of catechetical journals in the same period. Sometimes, such journals were
associated with a particular catechetical centre (e.g.. Lumen Vitae from
Brussels, Verbum from Nijmegen, etc.), but the influence of such
writings, often in translation. was much more widespread.' There was a
certain uniformity also in the history of some of these catechetical centres
which came gradually under suspicion for what was allegedly taught (or
not taught) and for the less formal liturgical celebrations which were
developed in the communal life of the student body, usually comprising
priests and religious of a certain age and experience. These instances,
I suggest, deserve the name of a "movement" because the similarities of
experiences of growth, contestation, acrimonious debate and censure, and,
in most cases, the threat of closure of such institutions or the suspension
from teaching of some of the lecturers. was indicative of something very
different happening on the formerly tranquil catechetical scene.4
It
is evident even from the summary view given above that there were two levels
of this movement. The setting up of catechetical institutes and magazines
was usually the initiative of local hierarchies responding to the particular
needs of the Church in their local area. What could not have been predicted
was the result of bringing together, in the immediate post-war years, catechists
in the very broad sense of that term, who were experiencing the acute pastoral
problems of a war-weary but largely "dechristianised" Europe for which
the former solutions were patently inadequate. It was frequently at this
level of personal experience that there began to be expressed an impatience
with older practices and an eagerness to find ways of coping with the new
situations already experienced. Almost inevitably. there was tension between
people at these different levels and later, more direct conflict.
I
think it is important to try to see why this catechetical movement has
been, and continues in many places to be, a source of tension within the
local Church. Especially, this is so because catechesis by its very nature
is the point of articulation,
as Jacques Audinet expresses it, between
theology in the broadest sense and that manner of transmitting the tradition
which we call education. Audinet expresses the difficulty as follows:
"(Catechesis)
is, at a given point of time, in a given society, the act by which the
Church community attempts to give the message she bears, with the help
of the very means which the culture of that society offers. The work of
catechesis then seems like the work of the Church community here and now,
attempting to articulate the language symbols, values. customs of a period
or a group by means of the Word which she bears".
Our
contention is that it is this articulation which is today in question.
The manner in which it has been carried out in recent centuries and which
we have inherited is challenged by the changes which have occurred during
the present time: whereas the attention to the Word of God (as the Council
attests), "continually questions the work of this very linking of traditions
and culture which Christians have undertaken in the Church. generation
after generation".5
Transmitting
the cultural forms of the faith, then, became for many catechists almost
diametrically opposed to that view of catechesis which Audinet expresses
as "the task of the Church building the Church within a given culture".
The increasing rapidity of change in the past thirty years which has seen
the creation of an almost universal youth culture manifested in dress,
in pop music and pop art, has only increased the distance between different
generations and has confronted us with a cultural pluralism inside as well
as outside the Church.
I
would like to consider some aspects of the continuing catechetical movement
in the light of these tensions
and try to discern just where it is and what are its emphases
as we begin the decade of the 1980s. To do this, I think it is important
to glance back at the decade 1960-1970 (with a little stretching at either
end to accommodate the Eichstatt Congress of 1959 and the International
Catechetical Congress in Rome in 1971) as the decade obviously of the Second
Vatican Council but also the decade of the catechetical congresses. The
perspective I would like to offertowards
the congresses highlights the rapidity of change as well as the diversity
of situations: "A broad sweep over the Congresses takes us from Eichstatt,
with its clear support of the kerygmatic movement, to Bangkok (1962) where
the certainty of Eichstatt was somewhat blunted by the reluctance of the-
Asian delegates to proceed by a method of history quite foreign to mentality
of the peoples they knew and where the problems of preevangelisation were
emphasised; to Katigondo (1964) where, at first tentatively and then with
more confidence, it was affirmed that the traditional African attitudes
to religion should be retained in the catechesis of these peoples; to Manila
(1966) which was faced by the 'kerygma in crisis' and pre-catechesis discussions
initiated by Nebreda; to Medellin (1968), dominated by the idea of human
development as an ideal in itself and not simply as a means to catechesis;
and then back to Europe (1971) where in Rome the whole course of the congress
attested to the acceptance of pluralism in catechesis".6
It
was not only the number or frequency of congresses which proved important.
There was, as well. an enlargement of vision for those well-known catechetical
writers and lecturers who experienced at first hand the different cultures
of their former students whom they had encountered previously only in a
European context. In this sense, the word inculturation
began to
take on an increasing importance for all the local church activities and
not simply for catechesis. The encounter with the living Church, incarnated
in different cultures, brought into question any emphasis which continued
to stress the insights or theological language of western Europe as essential
for transmission of the essential core of the gospel message.
The
decade we are now just concluding seems to me to be marked catechetically
as the decade of the Directories. If we except the French Directoire
de la pastorale catechetique of 1964, the principal catechetical task
achieved by many national episcopal conferences since 1970 has been the
production of some set of national pastoral guidelines for the elaboration
of catechetical programmes and materials. If we take into account only
those appearing in English which have been fairly widely circulated, we
have the following list:
1970
-The Italian Episcopal Conference's 11 rinnovamento della catechesi
published
in February was translated into English by the Australian Episcopal Conference
and issued to accompany what turned out to be a somewhat controversial
course for 16-year-olds. The Australian translation was entitled
The
Renewal of the Education of Faith."
1971
- Directorium Catechisticum Generate or General Catechetical Directory,
published by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, was circulated to
the delegates of the International Catechetical Congress of August of that
year.'
1972
- To Teach as Jesus Did. A Pastoral Message on Catholic Education,
was issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United
States in November.
1973
-Basic
Teachings for Catholic Religious Education was prepared by the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops "in consultation with the Holy See" for
January.
1973-The
Bishops' Conference of England and Wales under the title Teaching the
Faith "the New Way", published the Australian translation of the 1970
Italian
document, prefaced by nine pages describing the particular conditions of
England and Wales to be considered in reading the document.9
1974-The
New Zealand hierarchy issued the final version of a basic catechetical
document called We Live and Teach Christ Jesus.
1977
- The Education
Committee of the Australian Episcopal Conference, although failing to gain
approval by a majority of the Bishops, published We Preach Jesus Christ
as Lord as a document of their committee, though not of the Episcopal
Conference."
1978
-Cornerstone by
Mgr Kevin Nichols. subtitled "Guidelines for Religious Education", was
issued by the authority of the Bishops' Conference for England and Wales
as the first of a proposed series of nine books."
1979
-Sharing the Light of Faith, the
final version of the National Catechetical Directory, issued with the authority
of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States and
with the formal approval of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, was
published.
Not
all of the above publications merit the title of "directory" in the strict
sense in which the term is employed, for example, by the General Catechetical
Directory or by the United States National Catechetical Directory. But
the chronology provides a summary view of the directions taken over a decade
and the history of each resolution. For example, the Italian document of
1970
was the final stage of a team project of research and investigation
conducted under the leadership of James Medica. The Australian translation,
however, changes the title from the literal "The Renewal of Catechesis"
to "The Renewal of the Education of Faith". As I have noted elsewhere "the
description of catechesis as 'the education of faith' . . . arose out of
the French catechetical movement '1'education de la foi', an expression
which safeguards better than its English translation both the personal
and the communitarian dimensions of faith . . ."." As always, the search
for a new language is an important pointer to a changed view of the situation.
The same document commended by the Bishops of England and Wales was entitled
"Teach the Faith 'the New Way' ", a title which is more simple and more
direct but one which introduces the more magisterial word "teaching" in
preference to the word "education". Secondly, the Italian document was
to be the basic document providing the principles on which five books or
courses were to be developed for different age-groups from young children
to adults, a task now completed. At least one of these books was translated
into English.' Even though both the Australian Episcopal Conference and
the Bishops of England and Wales' offered their own prefaces to their use
of the translated Italian document. I have remarked elsewhere on the great
differences between traditional Italian Catholicism and the Catholicism
of a minority group in pluralist societies such as England and Australia."
It needs to be said as well that the delegates to the International Catechetical
Congress in Rome in 1971 gave only a guarded acceptance to the General
Catechetical Directory, welcoming it as a service
document but insisting
both on the regret that there was not a wider consultation sought in its
preparation and the necessity
for local people to take into account the particular culture
and background of their countries.
Another
tension of the decade can be seen in the appearance within three months
of each other of To Teach as Jesus Did and Basic Teachings for
Catholic Religious Education in the United States. Following this,
there was the extraordinary enterprise of beginning the preparation of
a National Directory by a massive consultation of the faithful through
the questionnaires and draft copies which preceded the final edition of
Sharing
the Light of Faith. On a much smaller scale, the New Zealand Episcopal
Conference's We Live and Teach Christ Jesus was the result of the
work of a number of study groups throughout the country under a co-ordinating
team. The final product,
entrusted to one person so as to ensure a certain unity of thought
and style, is an excellent document strongly reflecting the particular
situation of Catholics in New Zealand. It is in no way to minimise what
was achieved to remark, however, that some who had worked on the stages
of the document found it difficult to recognise their own contributions
under the basic unity of form and language given by the theologian who
had been asked to make the synthesis. This is simply to point up again
Audinet's remark about catechesis as the articulation of theology and education.
It was probably this difficulty. as well as differences over some current
theological views on topics such as revelation and church, which led the
Australian Episcopal Conference's Education Committee to go ahead with
the publication of We Preach Jesus Christ as Lord even though the
Conference failed to accord the document a majority vote. As I remarked
in reviewing the document, "the fact that the document has received only
a limited approval from the Episcopal Conference is in itself a faithful
indicator of the very different positions taken by individual members of
the Episcopal Conference with regard to Catechetics in their respective
dioceses . . " " What was important for those who had prepared the statement
was that the Conference had promised such a document. In issuing it, the
members of the Education Committee kept faith with those who had requested
such a document. This document does not pretend to be a directory but it
may be an important step towards the production of one.
It
seems to me to be important at this stage to look back to see the origins
of this movement towards the preparation of directories before attempting
to reflect on the particular tasks for catechesis occasioned by them. In
the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus
Dominos, October 28, 1965), §44 reads as follows:
"A
special directory should be compiled . . . and also a directory for the
catechetical instruction of the Christian people in which the fundamental
principles of this instruction and its organisation will be dealt with
and the preparation of books relating to it. In the preparation of these
directories due consideration should be given to the views expressed both
by the commissions and by the Conciliar Fathers".18
In
the Apostolic letter Ecclesiae Sanctae of August 6, 1966, on the
implementation of the decree on Bishops, Priests and Religious, Pope Paul
VI notes in §43:
"Regarding
pastoral directories, patriarchal synods and episcopal conferences are
requested to undertake without delay a study of these questions to be treated
in the directories, both general and special ones, and communicate their
views and requests to the Apostolic See as soon as possible".17
The
preparation and publication of directories, therefore, is integrally connected
with the implementation of the thought and spirit of the Second Vatican
Council in the local Church.
The
formal request for directories recognises the importance of the situation
of the local Church in the task of handing on the faith. At the same time,
it envisages a continuing dialogue between the local Church and the competent
authority of a Roman congregation (the Congregation for the Clergy) in
the preparation of an official document such as a directory. The difficulties
of such a situation are that, in the final resort, some kind of authority
must decide in situations in which a deadlock has been reached. For example,
the process followed in the preparation of the United States National Directory
was one which worked towards the establishment of a consensus. There is
probably no other instance in the history of the Catholic Church where
so many years, so much processing by computer, so many attempts at reconciling
different viewpoints were all used to come to a final form acceptable to
a wide range of opinion." It was, then, for some people a particularly
delicate issue when the Congregation for the Clergy required certain changes
in the final text. One key area was the following:
"It
would seem to be less opened to misunderstanding if the word 'revelation'
standing alone. without modifiers. quotation marks or italics, were to
signify public, divine revelation in the strict sense. and that other expressions
be chosen to indicate other modes by which God manifests himself to man".19
Gabriel
Moran, author of the highly important Theology of Revelation, commented:
"This
innocent-looking sentence asking that the directory be 'less opened to
misunderstanding' reverses the direction given to the directory by thousands
of religion teachers. Early directory treatment of revelation reflected
the Catholic Church's attempt to face educational and ecumenical questions.
The congregation's suggested change undercuts the directory's significance
and the process producing it",20
Moran
goes on to remark that the bishops realised the significance of the proposed
change and devoted part of their November conference to a debate on the
nature of revelation. He continues, "Ironically, the congregation's statement
reads well up to the code words `in the strict sense'. That is, revelation
without qualifiers or quotation marks should refer to the public presence
of God in the world. The catch is the peculiar and illogical way such Church
documents use the word 'public'. A public revelation is not one made to
the public or one publicly available".21
This
ironical last sentence leads Moran to further analysis of the restrictive
aspects of the congregation's statement. He concludes,
"To
admit that the Catholic Church does not have exclusive rights to 'public,
divine revelation' is threatening, but the only possible route after Vatican
II. Catholic positions need restatement in a world where God's presence
is acknowledged in other religions and in every individual's private and
public life . . . What neither the Catholic Church nor other religions
can claim is that their documents are 'the public, divine revelation'.
Religion teachers daily face this issue with any student capable of turning
on a TV series like 'The Long Search’”22
I
have cited this one instance at some length because it highlights again
the continuing tension between the catechists, the theologians and the
decisions of an episcopal conference and a Roman congregation. In this
particular instance, I suggest there are very special circumstances touching
the nature of religious pluralism in the United States, the contributions
of christian theologians other than those of the Catholic Church as well
as of those who are not christian, and, in the final analysis, the locus
of authority. There are also the kind of questions which arise when it
is realised that the major emphasis of the United States directory is towards
the continuing catechesis of adults and not simply about what is to be
taught to children.
The
"temporary" status of the United States directory is one of the important
qualifications expressed in the document itself:
"
. the treatment of such matters as stages of human
development, methodology, catechetical roles and training. organisation
and structures, resources, etc., is subject to change in light of new knowledge
or different circumstances.
"Because
the methods and cultural context of catechesis are very likely to change
and new Church documents on the subject will be published, this document
will be reviewed periodically for updating and improvement. Approximately
five years after its approval by the Holy See, it will be submitted to
an extensive evaluation, in a manner to be determined by the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops".23
Among
the powerful incentives to change in this decade of the directories, two
Church events have a special importance viz., the document of Pope Paul
VI
Evangelii Nuntiandi and the event of the 1977 Synod on
The
Catechesis o f Children and Young People. The marked continuity between
the 1974
Synod and that of 1977 gives a special importance
to directories of the past four years because I do not think it is being
too dramatic to suggest that the direction of the catechetical movement
has been turned towards a much more outward looking perspective. If the
post-war catechetical movement can be summed up initially in the slogan
"from catechism to catechesis", then I think the new emphasis might well
be "from catechesis to evangelisation". I should like to offer some considerations
on this interpretation.
First,
the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi is itself an important
illustration of the principle of collegiality operating in the post-Vatican
II Church. The Synod fathers, nominated by the Pope, meet every three years
to discuss a specific topic on which there has been a great deal of preliminary
work through working papers. In the 1974 Synod, Pope Paul responded
by promising the Church his reflections, as Pope on the matters discussed.
There
is, therefore, a two-way flow of ideas, from the Church to the Pope and
from the Pope to the Church, and in between, the very important process
of discussion, clarification and the new syntheses which has marked the
last two Synods.
Second,
the emphases of Evangelii Nuntiandi have a new urgency about them:
"we must devote all our resources and all our efforts to the sedulous evangelisation
of human culture, or rather of the various human cultures (19); . . . evangelisation
. . . is the special grace and vocation of the Church. It is her essential
function (14).
Accordingly, the Church begins her work of evangelisation
by evangelising herself . . . the Church must evangelise herself by a constant
conversion and renewal if she is convincingly to evangelise the world (15).
While
this first proclamation will be directed primarily towards those who have
never heard the good news of Jesus or to children, it will always be needed
nevertheless on account of the extent of dechristianisation today
(52);
. . . it is evident that the circumstances of our times make it ever
more urgent to provide catechetical instruction under some form of catechumenate
for the many adolescents who, under the firm influence of grace, are gradually
discerning the countenance of Christ . . . (44) ; . . . to administer
the sacraments without any firm basis of catechesis on the sacraments themselves,
or of general catechesis, is to stultify their purpose and to a great extent
deprive them of their efficacy (47) . . . the man who has been evangelised
becomes himself an evangelises
(24)".24
Now
none of these quotations, or others that could have been chosen, deny or
lessen the importance of catechesis for all groups within the Church. But
the vision is more outward looking. The Church's task is to try to find
ways of offering the Gospel to all. The "family" sense of catechesis viz.,
the activity of believers on behalf of those who are already initiated
into the faith of the Church, has depended so strongly on cultural supports
in the past that we have to question seriously whether such systems continue
to do anything more than offer a cultural introduction to Christ and his
Gospel. The security of being a Christian and of being on the road to personal
salvation are not enough. The gift is not to be hidden in the field
but used to be shared with all men." . . . the promulgation of the
Gospel message is not something which the Church may undertake or neglect
at her discretion; it is rather the function and duty imposed on her by
our Lord Jesus Christ so that all may believe and achieve salvation" (4).25
The
emphases of this document are strongly reflected in the three later documents
of the decade viz., the Australian We Preach Jesus Christ as Lord, the
English Cornerstone
and the United States Sharing the Light of
Faith. What will be important. I think, will be to see how these principles
are translated into practical projects in the particular circumstances
of each culture and even in the unique circumstances of each local church.
The point may have to be sharpened on particular issues to see whether
maintenance
or
mission is receiving preference. For example, a local church may
have to ask whether the maintenance of a local Catholic school which may
take the greater part of parish/diocesan finances allows sufficient finance
to give that priority to continuing an adult catechesis so stressed in
the Directories. Indeed, from a quantitative point of view, it is this
move towards continuing and adult catechesis which distinguishes the growth
of the Directories over the decade.
The
event of the 1977 Synod Catechetics in Our Time gives some insights
into the strengths and difficulties of the catechetical movement towards
the end of the decade. Despite suggestions that "Catechetics …especially
for Young People" was not the correct priority for the Church at that time,
Pope Paul VI insisted on the continuity of this Synod with that on Evangelisation.
I imagine, also, that attentive reading of many Catholic papers and journals
during the decade would show the recurring theme of controversy about the
content, style and materials being used in catechetical work. It is not
surprising, therefore, that a large number of the initial prepared interventions
reflected something of the catechetical controversies. For example, Archbishop
Winning of Glasgow concentrated on the lay person's role as teacher of
religion, remarking: "The teacher of religion, the catechist has been made
to feel very unsure and insecure and inadequate as new methods and approaches
were imposed on them by the bishop without adequate consultation and the
provision of means for adaptation and updating; for example, in the introduction
of the new text books; and untried programmes of catechesis; the experimentation
on First Confession and First Communion which was discontinued so abruptly
without the teachers being properly consulted and their lack of understanding
of the good reasons underlying the constant process of renewal .26
Archbishop
Ryan of Dublin raised the hoary questions of memorisation and catechisms.
" . . . It must be conceded that many pedagogical errors were committed
by excessive insistence on committing catechism answers to memory. As a
reaction to these mistakes, there is far less insistence on learning by
heart formulae of doctrine or of prayer. This change is characteristic
of education in general to such an extent that pupils are rarely enough
asked to commit texts to memory . . . It would be too much to expect the
Synod to produce a catechism which would be short, containing the essentials,
and revised in the light of Vatican II and the subsequent documents of
the Magisterium. Perhaps the time is not ripe for beginning such a work
. . .".27
Cardinal
Hume spoke on the content of catechesis, remarking: "Our experience in
England and Wales shows the need for a careful balance to be kept between
the attention to be paid for the role of doctrine in catechetics and the
formation to be given to live a truly christian life".27
Archbishop
Worlock, speaking on the role of the Catholic school. emphasised "the need
to relate its work to the community as a whole". Having elaborated on this
principle, he concluded by saying that "our experience in my country is
that the Catholic school is alive and well. We are committed to its continued
existence and development".29
The
"process" of the Synod was directed to a deepening of the issues under
discussion and the search for a set of pastoral principles which might
serve the wider Church through their adaptation in local cultures. This
principle of "inculturation" spoken to by Pedro Arrupe, Superior of the
Jesuits, was certainly one of the key ideas which emerged through the discussions.
The decision to offer a "message" to the "people of God" was an important
extension of the principle of collegiality which had brought the delegates
together. The Synod offered Pope Paul and his advisers 34 points as the
possible basis for a document such as Evangelii Nuntiandi. It is
important to note the attention to the concepts of 'Word'. 'Witness' and
'Memory' in the central part of the synodal message on "Catechesis: manifestation
of salvation in Christ". Here we can see. for example, a respecting of
the positions of those who wished more emphasis on the role of memorisation,
but
this particular modality is expressed only in the broader anthropological
concept of memory.
The catechesis of "witness" develops that strong
line of thought in Evangelii Nuntiandi perhaps best summarised around
Pope Paul's observation: "the men of our day are more impressed by witness
than by teachers. and if they listen to these it is because they also bear
witness".30
Conclusion
The
catechetical movement is alive and well at the beginning of the 1980s.
It is. and will continue to be.by its very nature, subject to recurring
tensions noted in this article, and this should prove to be an important
way of preventing its lapse into complacency.
The
decade of the directories does leave us. I believe, with a particular kind
of pastoral problem which may be expressed thus: How do we translate the
excellent principles of directories and documents into local and pastoral
practices? I happen to believe, for example, that Cornerstone offers
the best overview of the particular situation of England and Wales that
has been produced. But the carefully argued which are a feature of the
paragraph approach taken by the author, make it imperative that given to
signposting people in the use of such a rich book. The medicine prescribed
by the doctor will not be of much benefit if it remains untested; the forward
thinking and the link with tradition which is such a feature of Cornerstone
for
me needs to be known and applied. And I do not think this is best done
simply by reading the book. This directory, and others, may need
the aid of some catechetical "brokers" or popularisers who can help others
to a deeper conscientisation of its contents and the encouragement of their
own creativity and pastoral experience in implementing its principles in
the process of the "Church building the Church in a given culture".31
Notes
1
Loyola University Press 1965.
2
Le service de I'Evangile. Tomes 1 and 2. Desclee, Paris 1968.
3
E.g., the Australian catechetical review Our Apostolate frequently made
use in the 1950s of articles translated from the review Catechistes.
4
E.g.. the history of the Corpus Christi College in London.
5
Audinet. Jacques. Catechesis: the Church building the Church within
a given culture. Address to French Episcopate. Lourdes, 1975, translated
and re-titled in Our Apostolate, Vol. 24 No. 3, August 1976. pp. 132-156.
This quotation pp. 132-133.
6Rummery,
R M.. Catechesis and Religious Education in a Pluralist Society. Dwyer.
E. J., Sydney 1975: Our Sunday Visitor Press. Indiana, 1976: p. 106.
7
Dwyer, E. J., Sydney 1970.
8
Approved by Pope Paul VI. March 18, 1971. Copyright English translation
by U.S. Catholic Conference, 1971.
9
St Paul Publications. Slough 1973.
10
Dwyer. E. J.. Sydney 1977.
11
St Paul Publications, Slough 1978.
12
United States Catholic Conference, Department of Education. 1979.
13
Rummery. R M., in New Movements in Religious Education, (ed.) Ninian Smart
and Donald Horder. Temple Smith, London 1975, p. 154.
14
Ibid.. p. 161.
15
Our Apostolate. Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 69.
16
Vatican Council 11: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Decrees. (ed.) Flannery,
Dominican Publications, Dublin, 1975.
17
Ibid.
18
*'The process of dialogue included three extensive consultations with the
Church at large and with scholars, involving hundreds of thousands of people
and resulting in tens of thousands of recommendations". §4, p. 3,
"Sharing the Light of Faith".
19National
Catholic Reporter, January 19, 1979, p. 16.
20,21,22,
23 Ibid.
24,
"Evangelization Today", Doctrine and Life, March/April 1977.
25Ibid.
26
Supplement to Infoform, Vol. 7. No. 30 October 15, 1977, pp. 35-36.
'T Ibid., pp. 38-39.
27
Ibid
28
Supplement to Infoform, October 8, 1977, p. 5.
29Ibid..
pp. 3-4.
30Evangelii
Nuntiandi
(41).
31
I am preparing a book and some working strategies for generaluse
in this way.