The Catechism for the Universal Church
by Thomas J. Reese, S.J. The literature on The Catechism for the Universal Church (Vatican City:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989) is limited for three reasons. First, the catechism was
distributed to bishops only a year ago and most scholarly journals need more time to
solicit, referee, and publish articles. Second, the distribution of the 434-page catechism
was limited to one copy to each bishop. No copies were available for scholars from the
Vatican or from episcopal conferences. Third, the catechism was labeled sub secreto, which
led many bishops to falsely assume that they could not share it with theologians,
religious education directors, and other scholars. This bibliographical essay will review some publications written before and after the
draft catechism was distributed. To sum up a publication in a few lines is both unfair and
dangerous. The only excuse for such treatment is to encourage reading of the publications.
The catechism was called for by the 1985 Synod of Bishops in a brief paragraph of
"The Final Report," Origins 15 (December 19, 1985). The paragraph
states: Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic
doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that it might be, as it were, a
point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in the various
regions. The presentation of doctrine must be biblical and liturgical. It must be sound
doctrine suited to the present life of Christians. See also Cardinal Bernard Law's call for a universal catechism in Origins 15
(December 19, 1985). In June of 1986, Pope John Paul II appointed a papal commission for the catechism and
outlined its work in an address to the Vatican curia, "Implementing the 1985
Synod," Origins 16 (August 14, 1986). The pope said that the catechism was
desired by the synod "because of the need which is acutely felt in the whole church
for greater doctrinal clarity and certainty, so as to put an end to teachings or
interpretations of the faith and morals which are not in accord with each other or with
the universal magisterium." After a draft is prepared, he said, there "will
follow consultation with the bishops and experts in the proclamation of the word to obtain
suggestions and opinions in order that the finish work may be a real response to the
church's expectations." Sadly, his call for consultation with "experts" was
blocked by the limited distribution of the text and the sub secreto. At the 1987 synod of bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reported on the commission's
progress in "Toward a Universal Catechism or Compendium of Doctrine," Origins
17 (November 5, 1987). He presented a chronology of the work of the papal commission and
its drafting committee. The commission, he said, approved "a three-part plan of
structure (the truths to believe, the sacraments, the precepts." The commission also
decided that the catechism should be "an organic and synthetic exposition of the
essentials and fundamental segments of Catholic doctrine in matters of faith and morals,
in the light of Vatican Council II and in respect of preceding tradition of the
church." It must draw "abundantly from the sources of Sacred Scripture, must
present the characteristics of essentiality, of integrity and of comprehensibility."
It would include "formulas which synthetically summarize the fundamental chapters of
the faith, suitable to be learned by memory." For a brief interview with Cardinal Bernard Law, a member of the papal commission, see
"Universal Catechism in Final Phase," 30 Days (June 1989). Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II expressed his own thoughts on catechesis to a group of
U.S. bishops in "What is a Christocentric Catechesis?" Origins 18
(August 4, 1988). Outside Rome, scholars were discussing the catechism requested by the synod. A
collection of essays, Synod 1985--An Evaluation, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo and James
Provost, was published by Concilium 188 (December 1986). Two articles focused on
the catechism: "The Universal Catechism Proposed by the Extraordinary Synod of
Bishops, Considered From a Cultural and Pastoral Viewpoint" by Elias Zoghby and
"The Synod and the Catechism" by Berard Marthaler. Zoghby fears a catechism,
backed by the authority of the pope, would freeze current teaching and practice in the
church and "cut short the researches undertaken" by those "concerned to set
the Council on the path of concrete realizations." It is inappropriate for the Roman
church to formulate a catechism for Eastern rite and third world churches whose cultures
and traditions are so different from the Latin West. Marthaler traces the history of the catechism back to Vatican I which wanted a
catechism for children modeled on the Small Catechism of Robert Bellarmine. Vatican II
opted for a general catechetical directory rather than a universal catechism. Marthaler
concludes that the synod, unlike Vatican I, envisaged "a work for mature readers,
primarily catechists, teachers and other pastoral leaders." In addition, the synod
acknowledged cultural diversity and the need to adapt to regional differences. In "Catechetical Directory or Catechism? The Wrong Question," Church
3 (Fall 1987), Marthaler reviews the history of catechisms and the call for a catechetical
directory at Vatican II. He argues that a catechism and the directory are not mutually
exclusive. But any catechism should follow the general norms and practical guidelines of
the General Catechetical Directory. Herbert Vorgrimler, in "The Adventure of a New Catechism," Concilium
192 (1987), suggests the need for a new hermeneutic to make intelligible to the modern
mind what is meant by revelation. This hermeneutic would help connect experience of God in
the present with memories of God attested to by the church. See also Gilbert Adler, "Vers un catéchisme universel: Fantasmes et
réalités," Études 367 (July-August 1987). An entire issue of Concilium 204 (August 1989), edited by Johann-Baptist Metz
and Edward Schillebeeckx, was devoted to the question: World Catechism or Inculturation?
The title comes from the German that speaks of a world catechism (Weltkatechismus) rather
than a universal catechism. The volume is divided into three groups of essays. The first examines the idea of a
catechism as defined by the synodal text. Raymond Brodeur in "Producing a Catechism:
A Matter of Principle" notes that a catechism is used to teach the faithful but also
to slow down theological discourse by limiting what is thinkable. He proceeds to examine
what it means for a catechism to be biblical, liturgical, integral, and adapted to
present-day Christian life. Jean Joncheray asks "What `Catechism' for What
`World'?" After reviewing the different kinds of catechisms and their evolution
through history, he looks at the possible audiences it would address. David Tracy in
"World Church or World Catechism: The Problem of Eurocentrism" notes that
"as a genre, `world catechism' seems to imply too great a common mind and common
language on how to articulate the heart of the faith cross-culturally." Rather,
"Catholic Christianity is most faithful to its very catholicity by affirming the
common confession of faith in many (not only European) cultural forms." The second group of essays examine the actual ecclesial experience with catechisms.
Berard Marthaler in "The Catechism Genre, Past and Present" notes that the genre
includes a variety of works of different lengths and styles. He describes the attempts by
bishops to prevent the multiplication of catechisms, the rise of national catechisms
following Vatican I, and Roman critiques of three recent catechisms. Jürgen Werbick
answers yes to the question, "Can the Universal Catechism Help Overcome the Crisis in
Handing on the Faith?", but he warns against unrealistic expectations. He says that
Christians can no longer simply assert the truth, but must be convincing witnesses in
everyday discussion and debate. In "Experiences with the `Short-Formula' of the
Faith" Herman Häring examines attempts by Karl Rahner and others to develop a
summary of the Christian faith that could be understood by contemporary believers and
nonbelievers. He concludes that a world catechism "must be the last stage in a
multiplicity of experiments in which the churches come to an understanding, in the context
of their respective cultures and traditions, of their practice and their witness, on the
basic statements of the Christian faith." Part three of the Concilium collection examines the question of inculturation.
Johann-Baptist Metz in "Unity and Diversity: Problems and Prospects for
Inculturation" argues that ecclesial Christianity is European and Western, formed
from Jewish and Hellenistic Greek traditions. To respond to polycentric cultural diversity
of the world requires a commitment to seek justice and freedom for all. It also requires
acknowledging the other in their otherness. Emilio Alberich asks "Is the Universal
Catechism an Obstacle or a Catalyst in the Process of Inculturation?" He notes the
damage done to the "mission" churches by imposing translations of European
catechisms that led to a ghettoized Christianity. He reflects on recent church documents
on inculturation discusses the possibilities and risks of a universal catechism. Peter
Schineller in "Inculturation as the Pilgrimage to Catholicity" discusses the
interaction of the cultural context, the Christian message, and the pastoral team. Peter
Rottländer examines and critiques the socioeconomic and political factors leading to the
worldwide triumph of Western civilization in "One World: Opportunity or Threat for
the Global Church?" The church, he says, should further the process called for by
inculturation theology in the direction of a polycultural Christianity rather than be the
religion accompanying the capitalist victory over the world. The Concilium collection concludes with Vladimír Benda, "World Catechism
and the Conciliar Process for Justice, Peace and the Preservation of Creation." He
finds the conciliar process of the used by various ecumenical groups a better model for a
polycentric world than the centralizing model of catechism project. Six articles in America (March 3, 1990) by Lisa Sowle Cahill, Avery Dulles,
Elizabeth A. Johnson, Raymond A. Lucker, William J. O'Malley, and William C. Spohn were
the first scholarly response to the draft catechism. They, together with an article by
Berard Marthaler in Commonweal (March 9, 1990), were products of a symposium on
the draft sponsored by the Woodstock Theological Center. I reported on this symposium in The
Tablet (February 24, 1990) as did Francis J. Buckley, another participant, in The
Living Light (Spring 1990). I will not comment on these articles because they
represented first drafts of essays that were revised and published in The Universal Catechism Reader: Reflections and
Responses (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990). Since I organized the Woodstock symposium and edited the reader, I cannot pretend to be
objective in my evaluation of the results. I admit, however, that had time and space
allowed I would have added articles by patristic and Eastern-rite scholars. The reader begins with an introduction by me giving the history of the catechism and of
the Woodstock symposium. Although no attempt was made to force a consensus among the
authors, seven issues came up repeatedly in the discussions: 1) the feasibility of a
universal catechism; 2) the compartmentalizing of faith from life and worship caused by
the catechism's four-part structure; 3) the absence of hierarchy of truths; 4) the
deficient use of Scripture; 5) the selective use of Vatican II; 6) the lack of an
appreciation of history and the development of doctrine; 7) the sexist language. The reader is divided into five parts. The first gives a general overview of the
catechism with articles by Berard L. Marthaler, Lawrence Cunningham, and Mary C. Boys.
Marthaler examines the universal catechism to see how well it reflects the teachings of
Vatican II and the church's catechetical traditions. Cunningham focuses on the structure
of the catechism and on what we can learn from the long tradition of catechesis in the
church. Boys examines the use of Scripture in the catechism, which she and the other
authors find wanting. Part two of the reader examines the treatment of doctrine in the catechism's commentary
on the Apostles' Creed. John H. Wright discusses how God, especially the Father and the
Holy Spirit, is treated in the draft catechism. Elizabeth A. Johnson discusses the
catechism's Christology, which is a high Christology where the humanity of Jesus is often
lost. Avery Dulles looks at how the church is described, primarily through a sacramental
model. The next section of the catechism, and therefore of the reader, deals with liturgy and
the seven sacraments. Peter Fink found the catechism's treatment of the liturgy Byzantine
rather than Roman. The treatment of the seven sacraments, however, returned to a
Tridentine model according to David Power author of the next article. The final essay in
this section is by Monika Hellwig on the Lord's Prayer, which is treated in an epilogue to
the catechism. Part four of the reader examines the moral section of the catechism which is based on
the Ten Commandments. William Spohn finds that it ignores that last 30 years of
developments in moral theology. David Hollenbach reviews the catechism's teaching on
social morality and finds much good material from recent magisterial teachings but a weak
theoretical underpinning. Lisa Sowle Cahill looks at the treatment of sex and family in
the catechism where she finds few surprises. The last part of the reader has contributions from scholars who are also practitioners.
Francis J. Buckley reflects on how the catechism might adversely affect the catechesis of
children while William J. O'Malley does the same for teenagers. Raymond A. Lucker
discusses the catechism and its relationship to bishops. Nicholas Lash in "Concerning the Catechism," The Tablet 244 (March
24, 1990), criticizes the catechism for failing to appreciate the hierarchy of truths, the
development of doctrine, and the teaching of Vatican II. Meanwhile, an ad hoc committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was
appointed by NCCB president Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk to respond to the catechism. The
committee requested comments from experts in liturgy, theology, catechetics, canon law,
etc. The responses from the experts, which were not made public, were overwhelmingly
negative. The "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Universal Catechism," Origins
19 (April 26, 1990), was presented to the NCCB administrative committee which authorized
its transmittal to the U.S. bishops and to the Vatican as a report of the ad hoc
committee. Although couched in diplomatic language, the report is a devastating critique
of the catechism. The secretary to the drafting committee, Christophe von Schönborn, responded to the
critics in "The Defense Replies," an interview in 30 Days (May 1990).
Joseph Ratzinger, chair of the papal commission, responded to German critics of the
catechism in "Ein Katechismus für die Weltkirche?" Herder-Korrespondenz 44
(1990): 237-343. English excerpts are available in "Ratzinger's defense of draft
catechism," The Tablet (August 18, 1990), and in "Toward Deadline"
by Tommaso Ricci, 30 Days (September-October 1990). Archbishop William J. Levada, a member of the drafting committee, outlined the
background and genesis of the catechism in an address "Catechism for the Universal
Church: An Overview," Origins 19 (March 8, 1990), also published in
"The Catechism for the Universal Church," Living Light 26 (Spring
1990). Rather than responding to specific criticisms of the catechism he offers general
comments about the evaluation of the draft. James J. DeBoy responded to Levada in
"Compendium or Catechism: Its Audience and Purpose," Living Light 26
(Spring 1990). He calls for a restructuring of the catechism and clearer distinctions
between what is essential and not. Kevin Nichols in "The Disputed Catechism 1: A Necessary Task," The Tablet
244 (June 23, 1990), argues that although theologians and catechists may not like the idea
of a catechism, bishops, priests, and teachers support it. Paul Valadier in "The
Disputed Catechism 2: Turning the Clock Back," The Tablet 244 (June 23,
1990), says the catechism is reactionary and quotes "from the letter of Vatican II
documents, the better to bury their spirit." He describes the experience of the
French church with Pierres Vivantes. Rudolf Staverman and Peter van Diepen speak of
"The Disputed Catechism 3: An Honourable Failure," The Tablet 244 (July
7, 1990). They ask for more attention to the hierarchy of truths, dialogue with other
religions, non-Western modes of knowing, and the liberating and community context of the
Decalogue. The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter 13 (June 1990) contains six
articles on the catechism plus an editorial by Kenneth Baker. He wonders aloud how the
Woodstock scholars got the sub secreto catechism but does not tell how his authors got it.
He accuses them of joining in a group action to destroy or substantially change the
catechism, and then proceeds to publish a series of articles by people calling for
substantial changes in the catechism. Michael J. Wrenn reports on an address on the
catechism by Christoph von Schönborn. He quotes him as saying that publication of the
Woodstock symposium articles "was explicitly against the sub secreto nature of the
document." Why the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter is exempt from
the sub secreto is not explained. William B. Smith attacks Spohn's critique of the catechism. He finds "the moral
section of the Catechism a good doctrinal instruction on basic Catholic doctrine of
morals." In the moral section of the catechism Ronald Lawler finds "an orderly
synthesis, that reveals how coherent is the whole body of Catholic teaching." He also
finds "a surprising number of important flaws" including a failure to clearly
define what the church teaches. The treatment of suicide, self-defense, and capital
punishment is "muddled." Its treatment of abortion and euthanasia is unclear.
The catechism "seems to drift away from Catholic teaching on moral absolutes."
He faults the catechism for not insisting on the moral gravity of masturbation and
homosexual acts. In short, "Ringing clarity . . . is needed in speaking of the
reality of mortal sin, of the real danger of ordinary people committing such sins, of the
gravity of kinds of acts that are held not seriously wrong by many today." Janet E. Smith was "disappointed" with the catechism's treatment of sexual
morality. It "fails to reflect fully the advances made in our understanding since
Vatican II, specifically through the work of Pope John Paul II." The treatment of
marriage and contraception could benefit from the teachings of John Paul II. Helen H.
Hitchcock, on the other hand, says that "a very strong positive feature" of the
catechism is its integration of the theological insights of John Paul II. But since many
problems in the church and society can be traced to problems with marriage, she would like
clearer and more explicit explication of "what the Church does not believe" and
"what it does believe." The September 1990 issue of Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter
contains more articles critical of the catechism by Lawrence C. Brennan, Paul M. Quay,
Thomas Dubay, Janet E. Smith, George W. Rutler, and Paul C. Vitz. Brennan examines the
Christology and ecclesiology of the catechism, he finds the former better than he latter.
Quay finds the moral section confusing. He says the catechism should not try to be
biblical and liturgical but rather it should be a precise and carefully qualified
compendium of Catholic doctrine. Dubay examines the treatment of human dignity, freedom,
conscience, and responsibility in the catechism and finds statements that are unclear,
incomplete, misleading, and lacking full accord with the teaching of Vatican II. Janet Smith gives detailed comments and suggestions on about 80 paragraphs distributed
throughout of the catechism. Rutler suggests numerous improvements in the moral section of
the catechism. Finally, Vitz criticizes the draft for being "vague, wordy, and
wimpy" with language that is "abstract, wordy and ambiguous." He calls it
"a universal prescription for disaster. It is unworthy of our Lord and His
Church." This rhetoric exceeds anything written by the Woodstock scholars. Andrew Sullivan in "Incense and Sensibility," The New Republic (September
24, 1990), gives a highly favorable review to the catechism, but he finds the catechism's
"most inspired passages are not its own, but the words of the saints." In a press release the catechism drafting committee indicated that the episcopal
response to the draft has been overwhelmingly positive. There is no way to verify the
accuracy of this assertion since only the response of the U.S. ad hoc committee has been
made public. It is clear from this review of the literature, however, that the
overwhelming response of the scholar community has been negative. Both the Woodstock
scholars and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars point to serious difficulties with the
draft. That these scholar point to different problems is beside the point. The scholarly
consensus is that this draft needs serious work before it can again see the light of day.
in The Living Light 27 (Winter 1991): 151-57.
Pre-Draft Publications
Post-Draft Publications
Conclusion
See also