First adult catechism for U.S. Catholics

 

By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The nation’s bishops have approved a “U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults” — the first official national catechism in this country aimed specifically at adults.
Dotted with brief biographies illustrating the faith lives of American saints and other well-known figures in Catholic history in the United States, the new catechism is meant as a complement to the universal “Catechism of the Catholic Church” issued in 1992 by Pope John Paul II.
The new document addresses Catholic belief and practice comprehensively, but often from the perspective of special questions or challenges to Catholic faith that arise out of the American social and cultural context.
The bishops adopted the 456-page catechism by a vote of 218 to 10 on Nov. 17. A yes-vote by two-thirds of the active members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was necessary for its approval. The text must still receive recognitio, or confirmation, from the Holy See before it can be published as an official catechism.
Like the universal catechism, the new U.S. catechism for adults follows the classic four-part catechetical structure.
The first part is based on the creed, outlining the basic statements of Catholic faith. The second is devoted to the sacraments and concludes with a chapter on Catholic devotions. The third part, addressing the moral life, is structured around the Ten Commandments. The fourth part discusses prayer, using the Lord’s Prayer as its framework. At the end are a glossary of terms and an appendix with the texts of many traditional Catholic prayers.
Begun in June 2000 as a project of the conference Ad Hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism, the draft went through three national consultations before it was brought to the bishops for a debate and vote.
Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, chairman of the committee, and Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh, chairman of the five-bishop editorial oversight board that handled the writing, presented the document to the bishops during their fall meeting in Washington.
The most substantive floor debate about the final text concerned its treatment of differences between the Western church, or Latin church, and the Eastern Catholic churches, which have their own distinct history, liturgy, laws and practices.
By an agreement with the bishops of the Eastern churches, who by law have a right to write their own catechisms, the introduction says the new adult catechism is presented to Latin and Eastern Catholics of the United States with an understanding that the Eastern churches may also develop their own adult catechisms emphasizing their own traditions.
Bishop John M. Kudrick of the Byzantine Diocese of Parma, Ohio, expressed concern that the final text did not pay enough attention to differences between Eastern and Latin law and practice.
He cited as an example a reference in the new catechism to first confession before first Communion, with no mention of the legitimate tradition in some Eastern churches of giving Communion to infants when they receive sacraments of baptism and chrismation, the Eastern term for confirmation.
Another example, which Bishop Kudrick did not mention, was the document’s statement: “The essential signs of the Eucharist are unleavened wheat bread and grape wine,” which ignores the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist in most Eastern churches.
Among changes made through written amendments submitted during the meeting were several that did pay closer attention to Eastern-Latin differences.
One was the insertion of the term “in the Western church” in a reference to the preparation required for candidates for confirmation.
Another was the description of Mary in two places in the text as “birth-giver of God” where the draft version had said “God-bearer.”
“God-bearer” has long been a common English translation used in the Latin church for the Greek word “theotokos,” by which the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared that Mary was truly the mother of God, that she bore God in her womb. But Bishop Nicholas J. Samra of the Melkite Diocese of Newton, Mass., pointed out that “many saints are called ‘theophoros,’ or God-bearer, in the Eastern church. Mary’s title is [now] more precise. Yes, she is a God-bearer but more so God’s birth-giver.”
Bishop Kudrick asked for an additional month for Eastern bishops to review the text more carefully for other possible instances of insensitivity to the churches of the East that may have been overlooked.
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., outgoing conference president, warned that if further editorial changes of that nature were foreseen, what the bishops were voting on would not be a final text.
Bishop Wuerl said he saw no problem with granting one part of Bishop Kudrick’s request — that, wherever the Code of Canon Law is cited, parallel references from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches be cited as well.
Archbishop Hughes suggested that Bishop Kudrick’s other concern, for textual changes that might reflect Eastern traditions more fully, could be met by adding footnotes. That way, the text the bishops were voting on would not be changed, but any necessary clarifications could be done by footnotes.
The bishops found that approach acceptable and proceeded to the vote.