ممكن تقرير لمادة أدر 111

[بحراني قح]

السلام عليكم

ما يحتاج أطول في الموضوع
طلبي واضح وبسيط .. أبي تقرير إلى مادة أدر 111

والاستاد لاز يبي التقرير يكون بالانجليزي :confused:

[رفـــــاعي]

RECEPTION AND THE CATECHISM
Stephen F. Brett



How are Catholics in the United States receiving the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Has the response been warm or frosty? The answers to these questions will determine to a large extent the genuine pastoral unfolding of the often neglected or distorted teaching of the documents of Vatican II and indeed shape the theological literacy of the Catholic faithful. In the face of criticisms directed against the Catechism, we need to find a framework in which questions of magisterial teaching, the local church, inculturation and Apostolic Tradition can be integrated and studied. I believe that such a context exists in the concept of "reception," which has received serious scholarly attention since Vatican II, in large part because it serves to explain the impact of an ecumenical council upon the church throughout the world. We can apply its implications to different views of the Catechism.
I. The Meaning of "Reception"
A recent article on the meaning of reception distinguishes between its classical understanding as the acceptance by local churches of the teaching of a Council and, in more contemporary usage, an ecumenical consensus arrived at through dialogue between churches.[1] Ironically, each of the uses of the term has application to the Catechism. Its introduction into the experience of the Church in the United States is illustrative of the first sense of "reception" as the response of a local church to the ordinary papal magisterium of the universal Church. While the direct textual and thematic links between Vatican II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Catechism is apparent, the transmission of these texts (and the realities they describe) is not so apparent. An intense Romanophobic stance on the part of some has diluted, indeed distorted, the meaning of these historic documents and the sensus fidei which they authentically embody.
Current controversies also bring into play considerations that are virtually ecumenical, the more contemporary focus of "reception," for the perspectives of the Catechism and American catechetical presuppositions differ markedly, almost to the point where the respective positions amount to an "ecumenical" dialogue—two visions of church struggling to understand the other. It sometimes appears that theological critiques emanating from Western democracies propose a media-generated consensus fidelium rather than an interiorized sensus fidei in their response to authoritative ecclesial texts. The sociological starting point inevitably places a document in an "ecumenical" context that highlights differences and puts issues into an adversarial rather than integrative light.
This article will argue that the painstaking drafting and promulgation of the Catechism constitute a legitimate, authentic and indispensable "reception" of Vatican II. That is to say, its existence and teaching uniquely fulfill, in a substantive and not merely symbolic way, the magisterial identity of the Second Vatican Council. In proposing this argument, we will examine and critique alternative views which hold that the Catechism is (a) in some way unrelated to Vatican II, ( of minor significance, or © a flawed document in discontinuity with the Council.
Few contemporary theologians have spent as much time as Avery Dulles, S.J. in studying the ground-breaking text of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. In an essay on tradition as a theological source, Dulles points out that Dei Verbum speaks for the most part of "tradition" in the singular, whereas Trent, stressing the importance of objective content, had spoken of "traditions." Demonstrating his awareness of the interaction of history and doctrine, Dulles attaches importance to the historical means or modalities of "traditioning." Dulles, along with scholars such as Aidan Nichols and Jaroslav Pelikan, reminds us of the critical importance of historical deeds and decisions connected with the transmission of doctrinal formulas.[2] Expressions of belief are not merely academic abstractions but an essential part of the life and fabric of faith of the Universal Church:
The Constitution on Divine Revelation . . . insists on the nonverbal elements in tradition: Christ communicates the gospel not by his words alone but also by his dealings with others and his behavior (DV 7). The apostles transmit the gospel not only by preaching but also by examples and ordinances (institutiones, ibid.).[3]
Obstacles thwart transmission
Just as the owner of an automobile should be greatly alarmed with any transmission problem, so too the prospect of obstacles that thwart the transmission of a vital text can only trouble a Church historically determined to connect liturgy and belief, doctrine and life.
Led by Yves Congar, O.P., recent efforts to specify more precisely the nonverbal or historical means of transmitting apostolic tradition have underscored the importance of "reception." Congar has described it as "the process by means of which a church (body) truly takes over as its own a resolution that it did not originate in regard to its self [sic], and acknowledges the measure it promulgates as a rule applicable to its own life."[4]
By way of example, Congar examined the historical setting of liturgical changes to determine whether reception, non-reception, or something between these two poles, occurred. Congar cites the replacement of the "Gallican" rites in France in the nineteenth century by the Roman liturgy as a legitimate instance of reception but, in contrast, believes that the manner of substitution of the Roman liturgy for the Mozarabic liturgy in Spain used by Pope Gregory VII does not provide an instance of genuine "reception."[5]
A vital link with Vatican II Congar affirms the importance of reception at the Second Vatican Council:
That the concept of reception is still valid was shown adequately by Vatican II in its envisaging a collegial initiative emanating from the bishops, which could be a 'verus actus collegialis' only if the pope approved it 'vel libere recipiat.' . . . This text speaks of the reception of the privilege of the bishop of Rome that Vatican II so firmly reaffirmed and to which history bears adequate witness. It constitutes an authentic statement regarding reception since it is a matter of consent (by means of judgment) by one church body to a resolution put forward by others. Apart from this, law as at present knows no case of reception (so far as I am aware) other than acceptance by the pope, and, after him, by the world episcopate, of new bishops of the Eastern rite elected to their patriarchate after a mere 'nihil obstat' from Rome, but neither named nor confirmed by the Holy See.[6]
One can readily find internal confirmation in the pages of the Catechism of its vital link with Vatican II. Hundreds of references to the documents of Vatican II are cited. These citations abound on each page, serving not as "proof-texts" but as the warp and woof of the Catechism. The Catechism is indebted for its themes to Vatican II to such an extent that it is no overstatement to say that there could not be a Catechism without the preceding Council.
This phenomenon is hardly without precedent when we recall that the Roman Catechism emerged as the direct legacy of the Council of Trent. It exercised an enormous impact upon the life of the Church in the era of the Counter-Reformation.
There are some surely who would concede to their dismay that the Roman Catechism did in fact incorporate the debates, decisions, texts, and expressions of Trent into the liturgy and catechesis of the Church. Such critics, lamenting what they would consider the polemical hard edges of the Roman Catechism, would invoke the second meaning of "reception" cited above, namely, ecumenical consensus, and argue that the Roman Catechism delayed or prevented real reception from occurring insofar as it precluded a genuine dialogue with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers.
But such an approach which attaches more weight to denominational debate than to the unfolding of apostolic teaching within the ambit of the Catholic communion does not situate the center of magisterial teaching in the matrix of papacy and council but seeks in a quixotic fashion for a hypothetical "consensus" to emerge from the mix of contrary views. In effect, consensus replaces communion. In suggesting that truth emerges from the clash of opposites rather than from the organic development of theology at the service of faith, such an ecclesiology is indebted far more to Hegel than to the Holy Spirit. It is true that dialogue with other points of view has a long and distinguished pedigree in the history of theology, not least of which are the varied responses to cultural currents found in patristic writings. But it ought not to be overlooked that an ecumenical council is itself a powerful dialogue with many perspectives. Trent did not merely "react" to Luther but attempted to find terms, methods and pastoral approaches that could validate its understanding of the Catholic heritage, including, of course, Apostolic Tradition. Not to permit a Council to implement and apply the fruit of extensive reflection and spirited discussion clearly sacrifices the historical integrity of the council on the altar of ideology. Genuine ecumenism is served best by allowing each tradition to unpack its own self-understanding. The Roman Catechism was in a sense the indispensable pastoral corollary of Trent, even as the Catechism of the Catholic Church constitutes the irreplaceable pastoral corollary of Vatican II. Notwithstanding the anxiety of its critics, its existence and promulgation demonstrate the development of doctrine identified by John Henry Newman, considered by many to be a precursor of Vatican II.
This is not to suggest that the theological opus of a Council can be considered monolithic; the historical accounts of Trent by Hubert Jedin and contemporary accounts of different perspectives document amply the presence of a healthy plurality of approaches. Nevertheless, the documents that emerge from conciliar debate represent not so much human consensus and political compromise but a theological synthesis, a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit, illuminating and directing the universal Church. We see in history the genuine Paradosis of the Paraclete, the development of monuments of tradition which contextualize the questions of a particular age.
Is the Catechism. marked by any explicit or even implicit rejection of the teaching of Vatican II? Assuredly not! The indebtedness of the Catechism to the Council is not merely citational but substantive: an ecclesiology of communion, a renewed sense of sacrament, a moral theology which stresses virtue and beatitude, an examination of prayer as public, mystical and intimately personal. Any purported clash with or diminution of the Council implicitly starts from the flawed premise that a disembodied "spirit" of Vatican II captured the Zeitgeist of the 1960s pop culture, a venture in revolution rather than renewal.
The kind of development recognized by Newman in his classic work has as its hallmark continuity, not rupture. It would appear that those who might criticize the Catechism as in some way at odds with Vatican II have an impossible burden of proof to meet when a continuity of participants, themes, texts, and texture links Council with Catechism.
II. The Reception of the Catechism: Damming with Feints of Praise
The sense of published responses to the <Catechism> by individuals long associated with what might be called "the catechetical establishment" have ranged from serious caveats to shrill alarms. One can see a weather reporter pointing grimly to the arrival of a wintry blast of dangerous storm patterns on the weather map. Some have suggested that the Catechism not be distributed widely to the faithful, that it is not designed for classroom use, that it is only a set of guidelines and certainly not a text to be read at home, that it is only a framework for adaptation and not the result of the adaptation, that it represents merely one ecclesiology among many rather than the fruit of the Council. We are told far more about what the Catechism is not, than what it is, what we are not to do, than what we might do. At this point we are ready to put on a trench coat and flee for the hurricane shelter.
What ecclesiology explains such a chilly reception? It would appear that many voices connected with the catechetical establishment are concerned that the Catechism proceeds along a different path than do their products and efforts since the Council. From a human standpoint one can understand the reluctance to take a second look at one's efforts, but mounting evidence testifies to the generic illiteracy of youngsters on matters of the greatest importance. To charge that such illiteracy exists is not to attack anyone, least of all individuals in search of fundamental truths or writers of textbooks seeking to address the problem. But a problem there is. A financial advisor who neglects to inform a client when bank records indicate bankruptcy is incompetent. A catechetical establishment that will not face up to failures of method and pedagogy is comparable to the S & L industry which too long denied the existence of failed financial institutions.
Two additional points should be made about the "knowledge deficit" on the part of many Catholics. First, secular scholars have recognized that, for different reasons, students have not learned essential lessons about cultural literacy. In his Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, E. D. Hirsch, Jr. began the task of alerting students at different levels of instruction about foundational concepts of culture. So the statement that Catholic students are unfamiliar with their faith is not an isolated datum nor in any way an attribution of bad faith to catechists but a frank acknowledgement of a phenomenon already confirmed by scholars in many disciplines.
Second, to say that Catholic students do not know their faith is not to charge them with being stupid. Students cannot be blamed for what they were never taught. At a time when former Secretary of Education William Bennett's The Book of Virtues has become a best-seller, one would be hard pressed to find a Catholic high school student who could identify the cardinal virtues. Ironically, CCD students, hectored on how to feel but neglected on how to think, can find in the Catholic tradition on the virtues a splendid contribution to the unity of head and heart so essential to real education. Our students, like the rest of us, are selectively educated. They have learned, or will be forced to learn, far more about high-tech gadgetry than preceding generations. But how they translate that knowledge into wise choices should be the concern of catechists. It is indeed the concern of the Pope.
Think of a patient going under the frightening MRI tube in a hospital. The patient knows nothing of what the doctors and technicians are observing but the images resonated provide a detailed, 3-D picture of the inner workings of the patient's metabolism! On one side, there is highly detailed information, on the other side, there is a lack of awareness, if not fear. Do we not find some troubling analogies in our catechetical landscape today? The "implementation" of the Catechism should not be permitted to dam up a potent source of Catholic thought. It should be permitted to flow without constraint into the minds, hearts and souls of the faithful. Anything that impedes the flow of this historic text into the lifeblood of the Church in America smacks of either elitism or gnosticism, neither a desirable option.


_________________

[رفـــــاعي]

Administrative and management



The word Administrative and management both appear in the institute's title. Although often used synonymously it is possible to distinguish between the two terms. Lets us begin with Administration.

Administration

Is a word with a diversity of meanings. The term is often used in the sense of government direction or policy-making. The root meaning of administration however, is to serve. An administrator in this sense is, therefore, a servant who provides help and assistance. Administration is often used to refer to such activities and procedures as accounting, bookkeeping and other internal communication or record, i.e. clerical or office work as distinct from the principal productive or professional purposes of an organization. Thus, offices and the people who work in them are sometimes referred to respectively as administrative blocks or administrative staff. This is the sense in which the term is used by the institute of administrative management, which defines administrative as:
A branch management which is concerned with the services of obtaining, recording and analyzing information, of planning and communicating by means of which the management of a business safeguards its assets, promotes its affairs and achieves its objectives.
The term Administrative is used somewhat differently in the field of public and business administration. Public administration is undertaken on behalf of central and local government institutions only.
Administration is, therefore, both a function and a process.
* As a function it may be defined as:
The person or body of persons that decides the aims to be achieved by an organization and its employees and the policies under which they are to operate.

* As a process, administration is:
The means and procedures through which decisions and policies are implemented.
Management


In the previous section an attempt was made to avoid using the term management. This was because, strictly, administration or the making and legitimating of policy is distinct from policy execution or implementation which relates more closely to managerial activities. In practice, however, administration and management overlap and from this point onwards the two terms will be regarded, somewhat imprecisely, as synonymous. This section is concerned with three aspects of management: The nature of management; management typology and management roles.

The nature of management

Management like administration has a diversity of meanings. As Duckers states, management is tasks. Management is a discipline. But management is also people. As emphasized in the first two of the above definitions, however, management is also a process. We can, therefore, approach management from the standpoints of function, process, discipline and profession.

1- Function:
The group of people usually referred to as the management Is responsible for directing and running as organization. As a function, management may also refer to such sub-areas as administrative, financial, marketing , personnel and purchasing.

2- Process:
Activities by which internal and external resources are combined to achieve the objectives of an organization. These activities are better described as managing. A key word in this statement is resources. On occasion management is defined as the process of getting things done through people. Even human resources managers, however, are not concerned only with people. In addition to human resources, they are to a greater or lesser extent involved in the management of money, machines and materials, as well as to people.

3-Discipline:
A discipline is a department of knowledge. There is now a substantial body of knowledge relating both to management and its sub-areas such as those mentioned above under function. Another name for a body of knowledge is science and management or administration is now widely regarded as a social science. Other social sciences include anthropology, economics, ethics, history, law, psychology and sociology. Management draws heavily on these fields, especially individual and social psychology and industrial sociology.

Top management

In a company, top managers may or may not be directors. In the former case they are answerable to the shareholders by whom they are appointed. Their prime esponsibility, however, is not to the shareholders but to the company which, in law, is an artificial person distinct and separate from its members. Directors are not employees or servants of the company. When members of top management are not directors, they will be answerable to the board of directors and be employees. Top management usually, but not necessarily, general managers.

Senior management

Senior managers are those responsible for major areas of organizational activity, e.g. marketing and production and are, therefore, functional managers. They are answerable to top management.
Middle management

Both top and senior management are primarily concerned with policy formulation. Middle managers, while involved to a limited extent in the marking of policy. Middle managers are answerable to top or senior management and responsible for the work of supervisory management.


Supervisory management



Supervisor or first line managers are those responsible for the management of employees directly engaged in producing the good or services provided by an undertaking. Persons with such diverse tittles as fore-person, ward manager, section-leader, sergeant and head-waiter are essentially supervisors. Supervisors, by whatever title they are called, are answerable to middle management or, in smaller concerns, senior management.

[رفـــــاعي]

NATURE OF THE WORK



Receptionists and information clerks are charged with a responsibility that may have a lasting impact on the success of an organization in making a good first impression.
These workers often are the first representatives of an organization a visitor encounters, so they need to be courteous, professional, and helpful. Receptionists answer telephones, route calls, greet visitors, respond to inquiries from the public, and provide information about the organization.
Some receptionists are responsible for the coordination of all mail into and out of the office. In addition, receptionists contribute to the security of an organization by helping to monitor the access of visitors—a function that has become increasingly important in recent years.
Whereas some tasks are common to most receptionists and information clerks, the specific responsibilities of receptionists vary with the type of establishment in which they work.
For example, receptionists in hospitals and in doctors’ offices may gather patients’ personal and financial information and direct them to the proper waiting rooms. In beauty or hair salons, by contrast, receptionists arrange appointments, direct customers to the hairstylist, and may serve as cashiers. In factories, large corporations, and government offices, they may provide identification cards and arrange for escorts to take visitors to the proper office. Those working for bus and train companies respond to inquiries about departures, arrivals, stops, and other related matters.
Increasingly, receptionists are using multiline telephone systems, personal computers, and fax machines.

Despite the widespread use of automated answering systems or voice mail, many receptionists still take messages and inform other employees of visitors’ arrivals or cancellation of an appointment.
When they are not busy with callers, most receptionists are expected to perform a variety of office duties, including opening and sorting mail, collecting and distributing parcels, transmitting and delivering facsimiles, updating appointment calendars, preparing travel vouchers, and performing basic bookkeeping, word processing, and filing.
EMPLOYMENT
Receptionists and information clerks held about 1.1 million jobs in 2002. Almost 90 percent worked in service-providing industries. Among service-providing industries, health care and social assistance industries—including doctors’ and dentists’ offices, hospitals, nursing homes, urgent-care centers, surgical centers, and clinics—employed one-third of all receptionists and information clerks. Manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, government, and real-estate industries also employed large numbers of receptionists and information clerks. About 3 of every 10 receptionists and information clerks worked part time.
JOB OUTLOOK
Employment of receptionists and information clerks is expected to grow faster than the average for all occupations through 2012. This increase will result from rapid growth in services industries—including physicians’ offices, law firms, temporary-help agencies, and consulting firms—where most are employed. In addition, turnover in this large occupation will create numerous openings as receptionists and information clerks transfer to other occupations or leave the labor force altogether.
Opportunities should be best for persons with a wide range of clerical and technical skills, particularly those with related work experience.

Technology should have conflicting effects on the demand for receptionists and information clerks. The increasing use of voice mail and other telephone automation reduces the need for receptionists by allowing one receptionist to perform work that formerly required several.
However, the increasing use of other technology has caused a consolidation of clerical responsibilities and growing demand for workers with diverse clerical and technical skills. Because receptionists and information clerks may perform a wide variety of clerical tasks, they should continue to be in demand.
Further, they perform many tasks that are interpersonal in nature and are not easily automated, ensuring continued demand for their services in a variety of establishments.
Result
The receptionist has to be very careful in their job, because of those responsibility they have. Also they have to be well qualified and have various skills that makes them be able to work in any job related to business and office.
Conclusion
So, we can find out how much is the receptionest important for the business in general and the managers speceficly, even though the technology is expanding, but it can’t replace the receptionest.


_________________

[بحراني قح]

مشكور حبيبي وما تقصر

[رفـــــاعي]

حااااااااااااضرين اخوي,,


واذا بغيت اي شي خبرني,,

[amajed]

مشكورين ويعطيكم العافية

[amajed]

مشكورين ويعطيكم العافية

[رفـــــاعي]

الله يعافيك اخوي,,,

[عشق الحنان]

مشكور أخوي والله يعطيك العافية