Woodstock Catechism Project Revisited

by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
in The Living Light (Summer 1993): 71-73

By the Summer of 1989, it had become clear that the papal commission appointed by John Paul II was going to issue a preliminary draft of a new catechism. This catechism or compendium had been requested by the bishops at the 1985 extraordinary synod of bishops. That a preliminary draft was going to be distributed indicated how seriously the Vatican was taking collegiality since the catechism would be sent to every bishop in the world for comment. It also indicated the Vatican's desire to consult with experts in theology and catechetics before a final text was approved. The draft was an attempt, as suggested by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to consult "all the bishops of the episcopal conferences and, through them, of the catechetical institutes, theology departments and of other institutes expert in this area."

Always looking for new ways to serve the church, the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University recognized that the draft catechism was going to be one of the most important church documents since Vatican II. The Woodstock catechism project began simply as an attempt to bring together the best American theological and catechetical scholars to analyze the draft and make suggestions to the American bishops. The scholars pulled together by Woodstock proved to be a "who's who" of theological and catechetical experts: Mary C. Boys, S.N.J.M., Francis J. Buckley, S.J., Lisa Sowle Cahill, Lawrence S. Cunningham, Avery Dulles, S.J., Peter E. Fink, S.J., Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., Raymond A. Lucker, Berard L. Marthaler, O.F.M. Conv., William J. O'Malley, S.J., David N. Power, O.M.I., William C. Spohn, S.J., and John H. Wright, S.J.

Being a student of political science and church affairs, I should have realized that I was going where "angels fear to tread." What began as a simple scholarly endeavor to help the American bishops soon became depicted as cabal of dissidents launching a preemptive strike on the catechism. Such a fiction belies how difficult it is to organize American scholars to do anything. If our critics only knew how difficult it was to even get agreement on a weekend when we could meet! No attempt was ever made to reach consensus, rather every scholar was allowed freedom to express himself or herself. Lively but respectful disagreements took place within the symposium itself.

Some of the critics of Woodstock appear to believe that the Vatican was lying when it asked the bishops and scholars for comments and suggestions. They seem to believe that all the Vatican wanted was for the bishops and scholars to endorse the draft as divinely inspired. Such as cynical view of the Vatican is really quite disloyal.

Certainly some of the Woodstock scholars questioned the very idea of a catechism at this time, but they were still willing to devote many hours analyzing the text so that the next draft could be improved. If they had really wanted to sabotage the catechism, they would not have made so many suggestions for improving it.

I stand in great admiration of the Woodstock scholars who made great sacrifices and worked under tight deadlines in order to examine the catechism. Since most of them are teachers, the arrival of the draft in December 1989 meant ruined Christmas vacations and the postponement of other scholarly projects that they were attempting to finish. The Vatican imposed deadline (May 31, 1990) for input from the bishops forced the scholars to drop everything else and work on the catechism so that the bishops would have time to review the catechism and the scholars' analyses.

The preliminary results of the Woodstock symposium were published in America (March 3, 1990) and Commonweal (March 9, 1990). Although publication of the papers was objected to by those who fear open discussion in the church, publication was in fact the easiest and most efficient way of getting the studies into the hands of the bishops and their theological advisers in time for them to meet the Vatican deadline. Interestingly, those who at first attacked the Woodstock scholars for publishing their critiques were themselves in print with their criticisms within a couple of months. One must conclude that our principal sin was getting into print first. The revised papers were ultimately published as The Universal Catechism Reader: Reflections and Responses (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990).

Did the Woodstock project make a difference? Only those who have seen the final draft (which I refuse to look at until it is officially approved and released) can answer that question. Numerous bishops thanked us for our assistance, and thirty-five bishops followed up their thanks with a check to help defray the costs of the project. Clearly the NCCB ad hoc committee that reviewed the catechism echoed many of the same criticisms that were voiced by the Woodstock scholars. Cardinal Ratzinger in his report on the consultation to the 1990 synod also listed some of the topics mentioned by the Woodstock scholars. While these issues would undoubtedly have surfaced in any case, other scholars were able to build on the initial work done by the Woodstock scholars. Msgr. Honoré reports that "by June 1990, one could obtain almost everywhere the texts of this colloquium in several languages." I was surprised by this report since I had given no one permission to translate the texts for publication.

The reviews of the Reader have been mostly favorable in journals like Actualidad Bibliografica de filosofía y theología, America, Catholic International, The Furrow, Horizons, The Living Light, Louvain Studies, The Month, The National Catholic Reporter, New Theology, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Review Religious Studies Review, and Theology Digest. Most recently, The Universal Catechism Reader was referred to in an article by Christoph Schönborn in L'Osservatore Romano (January 6, 1993). Woodstock was also asked by the Catholic Theological Society of America to put on a panel discussion of the catechism at its 1990 convention in San Francisco. Such widespread acknowledgment of the positive contribution of the Woodstock project is gratifying. It encourages us to ignore our ad hominem critics.

Those who lambasted the Woodstock catechism project will be happy to know that we have no plans to respond to the final draft. Since our original purpose was to help the bishops meet an extremely tight deadline in responding to the first draft, having accomplished our task, the Woodstock Theological Center happily leaves the new catechism in the capable hands of other theologians and catechetical experts.

Thomas J. Reese, S.J., a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, edited The Universal Catechism Reader: Reflections and Responses (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990). His most recent book is A Flock of Shepherds: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1992).

 

See also