No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
In his President’s Report three years ago, Jack Mahoney considered whether a theologian’s relation to the episcopate should not be more like that of artist to patron than mandarin to minister, and he ended by suggesting that ‘part of the role of our Association is ... to have a sacramental function’ within the local Church, both reflecting on our common faith and aiming to communicate that reflection.
During the past year, a series of in themselves apparently unconnected developments convinced me that it might be helpful as part of our fulfilment of the tasks which Jack indicated, if we were to set aside an hour for their consideration. The developments that I have in mind may be listed under seven headings:
1. First, and most diffusely, I sense a growing thirst, on the part of Catholic laypeople, for continuing theological (and especially biblical) education—the impetus for which comes variously from parental responsibility, from questions of justice and peace, increasingly (I think) from concern for creation and, most generally, from the recognition that, in an ever more barbarous and philistine society, only faith appropriated and purified through prayer and shared reflection can hope to stand.
2. Secondly, there is a disturbing tendency towards polarisation in our perception of the relationship between ‘form’ and ‘content’ in religious education. This is surely an area which cries out for improvement in the quality of dialogue and collaboration between bishops, catechists, and theologians.
3. Thirdly, the ‘Cologne Declaration’ signed in January by 163 theologians from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, was followed by statements from theologians in France, Belgium, Italy and Brazil.
1 James Burtchaell, ‘Too Bad to be True’, The Tubler, 8 April 1989, pp. 388, 390.
2 Full text in ‘Bishops and Theologians: Promoting Cooperation, Resolving Misunderstandings’, Origins. CNS Documentary Service, Vol. 19, No. 7 (June 29. 1989). pp. 98–110Google Scholar.
3 See Lash, Nicholas, ‘Life, Language and Organization: Aspects of the Theological Ministry’, neologv on Dover Beoch (London, 1979), pp. 89–108Google Scholar. esp. p. 107. See also the February 1989 special issue of New Blac∼riurs. entitled Whut Counrs us Cutholic Teuching?, and especially Edmund Hill, ‘Who Does the Teaching in the Church?’ (pp. 67–73).
4 At the Annual General Meeting. the following resolution was passed by 46 votes to 2, with 1 abstention: ‘The Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain expresses its disquiet at the introduction into the Church, without consulting theBishops of the Church, of a revised Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity. Rccognising our mutual concern about the possible doctrinal. pastoral and ecumenical implications of this revision. and wishing to cooperate with our bishops, we therefore request that the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales and the Episcopal Conference of Scotland enter formally into consultation with the Association on this subject.’
You have
Access