Final Examination of Patricia Panganiban
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
November 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Caldwell Hall Room 125
Director: Sr. Catherine Dooley
"The Development of the National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines (1985) and the Catechism for Filipino Catholics (1997): Model of Inculturation."
This dissertation examines the development of the National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines (1985) and the Catechism for Filipino Catholics (1997) as an entry point into the complex issues involved in inculturating catechesis. The study’s immediate aims are to investigate what prepared the ground for the creation of the Philippine catechism and directory; to analyze the theological issues encountered throughout the texts’ development; and to describe the vision and principles governing both documents. The larger, overall purpose is to draw out implications for understanding catechesis and its inculturation today.
Post-Vatican II catechetical renewal in the Philippines began to take shape in the 1950s and ‘60s as a result of the Second Vatican Council’s call for aggiornamento, the influx of new ideas from the worldwide catechetical movement, and various developments in the local ecclesial scene. One tangible result of this renewal is the shift from the long-established trend of importing catechetical texts from abroad, to the creation of more local, inculturated materials. The development of both the National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines and the Catechism for Filipino Catholics offers a glimpse into the process of inculturating catechesis and brings to light its challenges. In analyzing the texts’ drafts and dossiers, this study uncovers differing theological tendencies and inherent tensions within both inculturation and catechesis as the major sources of conflict in the approval process. In describing and articulating the documents’ vision and principles, this study finds the notion of integration to be the leitmotif and central theme. The dissertation concludes by summarizing the foregoing research and highlighting the following lessons drawn from this history: first, faith can be distinguished from its expression, and plurality in expressions is not necessarily tantamount to relativism. Second, communicating faith’s objective (fides quae) and subjective (fides qua) dimensions require a delicate balancing act in which fundamental theology plays a necessary role.