What do you think?
Rate this book
The Universal Catechism Reader: Reflections & Responses
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
237 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1990
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 21, 2024
A SERIES OF ESSAYS CRITIQUING THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE "CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Editor Thomas Reese states in his Introduction to this 1990 book, "is a catechism for the universal church necessary? ... Likewise, we must ask, is a catechism for the universal church possible?... Can any statement of the Christian faith stand outside history and culture? Does not the draft itself reflect a particular culture and a particular school of theological thought?... the four-part structure ... easily falls into the trap of presenting Christianity as a series of doctrines one must believe... without any explanation of how what one believes affects how one lives and celebrates... the catechism fails to distinguish what is essential from what is less important in its teaching. Everything, from angels to the Trinity, is presented without consideration of what theologians call the hierarchy of truths. No distinction is made between infallible teaching and theological opinions... Would it not be better to have a shorter statement of the essentials of the faith?" (Pg. 8-9) He adds, "the sexist language of the text is unacceptable" (pg. 10) and "In my opinion, the document needs to be totally rewritten. It cannot be saved by amendments..." (Pg. 11)
Another essayist says, "Can a document intended for the universal church expound so much with so little reference to women? Aside from the many references to Mary, few others are included, and then only with brevity." (Pg. 53)
Another asserts, "it is so pervasively marked by inaccuracies, questionable interpretations, omissions, lack of proper contextualization, misplaced emphases, and a failure to note developments of theological and biblical scholarship of the last twenty-five years that it is hardly redeemable in its present form." (Pg. 69)
Another says, "If this draft is not substantially revised, even essentially redrafted and rewritten, it may well function best as a 'point of reference' of what not to do in drawing up a catechism for this country." (Pg. 83)
Another author asks, "Did some Roman Rip Van Winkle write the moral section of the proposed [Catechism]? At first glance it appears that its author has slept through the last thirty years of development in the field of Christian ethics. Since this has been one of the most fruitful eras in the entire history of moral theology, our author has missed a great deal." (Pg. 137)
But another author admits, "In the discussion of homosexuality we see a distinct advance over the much-criticized 1986 offering of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.' Homosexuality is handled in a separate category, apart from 'deviations,' abnormalities, and perversions.'" (Pg. 177)
Another suggests, "Though some parts are quite good, as a whole it is positively harmful and should be thoroughly rewritten to be of service in catechesis." (Pg. 200)
Conservatives and those who support the Catechism will probably hate this volume [e.g., see 'Flawed Expectations: The Reception of the Catechism of the Catholic Church'], but those with a more "progressive" outlook may look wistfully at this book, and wish that its recommendations had been implemented.
Editor Thomas Reese states in his Introduction to this 1990 book, "is a catechism for the universal church necessary? ... Likewise, we must ask, is a catechism for the universal church possible?... Can any statement of the Christian faith stand outside history and culture? Does not the draft itself reflect a particular culture and a particular school of theological thought?... the four-part structure ... easily falls into the trap of presenting Christianity as a series of doctrines one must believe... without any explanation of how what one believes affects how one lives and celebrates... the catechism fails to distinguish what is essential from what is less important in its teaching. Everything, from angels to the Trinity, is presented without consideration of what theologians call the hierarchy of truths. No distinction is made between infallible teaching and theological opinions... Would it not be better to have a shorter statement of the essentials of the faith?" (Pg. 8-9) He adds, "the sexist language of the text is unacceptable" (pg. 10) and "In my opinion, the document needs to be totally rewritten. It cannot be saved by amendments..." (Pg. 11)
Another essayist says, "Can a document intended for the universal church expound so much with so little reference to women? Aside from the many references to Mary, few others are included, and then only with brevity." (Pg. 53)
Another asserts, "it is so pervasively marked by inaccuracies, questionable interpretations, omissions, lack of proper contextualization, misplaced emphases, and a failure to note developments of theological and biblical scholarship of the last twenty-five years that it is hardly redeemable in its present form." (Pg. 69)
Another says, "If this draft is not substantially revised, even essentially redrafted and rewritten, it may well function best as a 'point of reference' of what not to do in drawing up a catechism for this country." (Pg. 83)
Another author asks, "Did some Roman Rip Van Winkle write the moral section of the proposed [Catechism]? At first glance it appears that its author has slept through the last thirty years of development in the field of Christian ethics. Since this has been one of the most fruitful eras in the entire history of moral theology, our author has missed a great deal." (Pg. 137)
But another author admits, "In the discussion of homosexuality we see a distinct advance over the much-criticized 1986 offering of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.' Homosexuality is handled in a separate category, apart from 'deviations,' abnormalities, and perversions.'" (Pg. 177)
Another suggests, "Though some parts are quite good, as a whole it is positively harmful and should be thoroughly rewritten to be of service in catechesis." (Pg. 200)
Conservatives and those who support the Catechism will probably hate this volume [e.g., see 'Flawed Expectations: The Reception of the Catechism of the Catholic Church'], but those with a more "progressive" outlook may look wistfully at this book, and wish that its recommendations had been implemented.
Displaying 1 of 1 review