¹ This article is a revised version of a paper given in the Academic Study and Teaching of Religion section of the American Academy of Religion, New Orleans, November 1990, entitled “Teaching Church Teaching as a Subversive Activity.”

² I am highly indebted in the construction of this assignment to earlier discussions of the interpretation of dogmatic statements carried on by Walter Principe and Avery Dulles. See Principe, Walter, “Hermeneutic of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Statements,” Studies in Religion 2 (1972): 157–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dulles, Avery, “The Hermeneutics of Dogmatic Statements” in his The Survival of Dogma (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 171–84.Google Scholar For a recent treatment, see the International Theological Commission's “On the Interpretation of Dogmas,” Origins 20 (05 17, 1990): 1–14.Google Scholar

³ I first developed this process at St. John's Seminary in Plymouth, MI in an M.Div. ecclesiology course (1982-87). I adapted it for an undergraduate course “The Church in the Modern World” at the College of the Holy Cross (1987-93). I also used this assignment in the Faculty of Religion at the University of Tulsa. In this latter context, I adapted the assignment for use with statements originating from other Christian church bodies, referring to it as a “stance analysis.” My remarks in this article concern the process as it has been developed for undergraduates in a Catholic context.

⁴ The religious educational-philosophical assumptions which govern my approach have been articulated by such theorists as Sharon Parks, Michael Warren, James Fowler, and Thomas Groome. For an interesting discussion of how official church teaching can be presented giving attention to faith-development levels (and in a congregational context), see Osmer's, RichardA Teachable Spirit: Recovering the Teaching Office in the Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 212–51.Google Scholar

⁵ See Fowler, James, Faith Development and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 96.Google Scholar

⁶ McBrien, Richard P., Catholicism: Study Edition (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981);Google ScholarBausch, William, Pilgrim Church: A Popular History of Catholic Christianity (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third, 1985);Google ScholarAbbott, Walter M., ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: America Press, 1966);Google ScholarO'Connell, Timothy E., ed., Vatican II and Its Documents (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986).Google Scholar Also helpful is Donovan, Vincent, The Church in the Midst of Creation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989)Google Scholar, which gives anice distillation of Karl Rahner's evaluation of Vatican II as ushering in the period of a “world church.” See Rahner's, essay, “Basic Theological Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” Theological Investigations (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 20:77–89.Google Scholar

⁷ See Morrissey's, updated handbook, “Papal and Curial Pronouncements: Their Canonical Significance in the Light of the 1983 Code of Canon Law,” Jurist 50 (1990): 102–25.Google Scholar

⁸ The following list gives an idea of the kinds of documents suitable for student research and analysis: Decree on the Laity (1965), Decree on Ecumenism (1964), Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christians (1965), Nostra Aetate (1965), Medellin Documents (1968), Humanae Vitae (1968), A Call to Action (1971), Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (1977), On Human Work (1981), The Challenge of Peace (1983), Economic Justice for All (1986), On Social Concerns (1987). Guy Wilson has produced a useful resource guide on Catholic Social Teaching which includes the major sources for finding the documents; see his “Celebrating the Church's Social Teachings: A Resource Guide,” Living Light 28 (1991): 13–18.Google Scholar

⁹ An example that is pertinent here is Inter Insignores, which is canonically classified as a “declaration” of the CDF.

¹⁰ See Dulles, Avery, Models of the Church, expanded edition (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1956).Google Scholar

¹² I am indebted to Bishop Kenneth E. Untener of Saginaw, MI for these illustrations, though I have modified them somewhat to suit the particular needs of this assignment.

¹³ For a valuable discussion of the young adult developmental stages with respect to faith, see Parks, Sharon, The Critical Years (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Rausch, Thomas P., Authority and Leadership in the Church (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 103–19.Google Scholar An extremely thorough treatment of the canonical doctrine of reception is that of Coriden, James, “The Canonical Doctrine of Reception,” Jurist 50 (1990): 58–82.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For other helpful articles (for the professor) on the concept of “reception,” see Zizioulas, John, “The Theological Problem of Reception,” Bulletin/Centro pro unione 26 (1984): 3;Google ScholarKilmartin, E. J., “Reception in History: An Ecclesiological Phenomenon and Its Significance,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984): 34–54;Google ScholarCongar, Y., “La ‘réception’ comme réalité ecclésiologique,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 56 (1972): 369–403;Google ScholarHoutepen, A., “Reception-Tradition-Communion” in Thurian, M., ed., Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1983), 140–60;Google Scholar and Komonchak, J., “Humanae Vitae and Its Reception: Ecclesiological Reflections,” Theological Studies 39 (1978): 221–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ In regard to this last pedagogical outcome, I have had other professors and librarians thank me for the research skills students have acquired as a result of this assignment. Religious studies majors, in particular, have found it very valuable.

¹⁷ See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,” Origins 20 (07 5, 1990): 117–26Google Scholar, and the address Ratzinger gave at St. Michael's College, “The Church and the Theologian,” Origins 15 (05 8, 1986): 761–70.Google Scholar McCormick and McBrien discuss the “privatization” of theology which, they believe, has resulted from a “noxious development” concerning the way theology and the role of theologians are increasingly regarded by the CDF (see “Theology as a Public Responsibility,” America 165 [1991]: 184–89, 203–06Google Scholar).

¹⁸ Ibid., 184.

¹⁹ Ibid., 189.

²⁰ Curran, Charles E., “A Century of Catholic Social Teaching,” Theology Today 68 (1991): 162.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 162-63.