Milestones: The Jesuit Spirituality Center, Wernersville, PA (1972-present)

February 14, 2016


By Paul Burgmayer


A different path

One-on-one and peer supervision at the Jesuit Spirituality Center in Wernersville, PA

TIM Blog 1

View of West Portico Jesuit Center



Father Schemel: It doesn’t feel right to close the novitiate.

Father Connor: I agree.

Father Schemel: What if we convert part of it to a spiritual center?

Father Connor: What’s a spiritual center?

Father Schemel: I don’t know, ask me again in two years.


About the same time that William Barry, SJ and his colleagues were opening the Center for Religious Development (CRD) in Cambridge, MA, George Schemel, SJ asked James Connor, SJ, his Provincial in the Maryland Province about converting part of the Jesuit Novitiate in Wernersville, PA to a spiritual center. As the story is told,[1] they spoke at a coffee break to decide the fate of the then 40-year-old novitiate. Completed in 1930, the spacious four-story building with its echoing limestone and marble-lined halls, its gorgeous chapel and 200-acre campus, had seen enrollment dwindle through the 1950’s and 60’s and its future was uncertain.

TIM Blog 2

View of chapel as seen from 3rd floor balcony

​A 1952 graduate of the University of Scranton with a bachelor’s degree in physics and mathematics, Schemel held M.A and Ph.L. degrees from Fordham University, and received training in theology at Woodstock College in Maryland and the Gregorian University in Rome.[2] Most important for this narrative, he did his tertianship[3] with Paul Kennedy, SJ at St. Bueno’s in Wales. Kennedy was one of the pioneers in returning to the one-on-one Spiritual Exercises originally practiced by Ignatius of Loyola and his early followers.[4] This was a dramatic step away from group-centered preached retreats[5] developed in the early 20th century.[6]

Barry and his colleagues at CRD chose to focus on spiritual direction. In contrast, Schemel, along with John English, SJ and David Asselin, SJ at the St. Ignatius Retreat Center in Guelph, Ontario and David Fleming, SJ at St. Louis University,[7] focused on the Spiritual Exercises in directed retreats.

TIM Blog 3

Jesuit Center, as viewed from the west

​In light of the challenges offered by Vatican II to “go back to your roots and find your charisms,” religious communities across the United States began re-exploring their history. Some sense of this change can be felt in this article by Elizabeth Liebert, SNJM:

I am a Roman Catholic religious sister who began her journey in religious life just prior to the heady breath of Vatican II-generated fresh air that rattled the convent walls. Spiritual direction, required of everyone in formation, adhered very much to an institutional model. We were required to speak about our lives monthly with the superior of our particular stage of formation. I found these sessions torturous: if I said the wrong thing, or appeared to have too many doubts and struggles, I was sure I would be asked to leave. Not an auspicious foundation for experiencing the liberty of a daughter of God!

As I was getting my feet wet in teaching, an innovation appeared on the horizon: the (one-on-one) directed retreat. Along with the directed retreat came new ways of praying, new in that they began to flow from one’s own personal predilections in prayer, at least under the encouragement of a good director. These first directed retreats were a reclamation of Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, and very shortly became a seedbed for training a whole cadre of spiritual directors who burst the boundaries of the ministry. [8]

At the time, there were not many ways to learn about discernment. Kathryn Fitzgerald, an early intern the in Wernersville program, told a story of Schemel being called to Rome for a meeting to discuss how to develop discernment skills in religious communities. At the meeting, Schemel explained how he had already given a number of discernment workshops. The response from the officials in Rome was “Father, you actually do this?” Yes, he and others did. The staff at Wernersville offered workshops in Wernersville and in communities in the Northeastern United States.

While discernment workshops[9] were important, from its beginning on the Feast Day of St. Francis (Oct 3rd, 1971), the Jesuit Center at Wernersville focused on offering the Spiritual Exercises as the source of understanding about discernment. While the Center for Religious Development (CRD) in Cambridge focused on training directors for monthly spiritual direction, the highest priority at Wernersville in the 1970’s, was training directors to offer retreats in the Ignatian tradition, particularly the Spiritual Exercises.[10]

Retreat director training

The Jesuit Center at Wernersville was busy from its beginning. Their first 30-day retreats were offered in the Summer of 1972. Kathryn Fitzgerald made her 30-day retreat there in 1974 in a group of about 60 men and women, all Roman Catholic religious participating in a 6-week program for spiritual directors and formatorsInitially Schemel and Roemer worked with George Kreiger, SJ and Henry Haske, SJ.   While they were on the staff of the novitiate at the time, George William SJ and George Aschenbrenner SJ[11] also directed retreats and taught discernment workshops in the early years of the Center.

While preached retreats needed only one director for even a large group, returning to the tradition of one-on-one retreats required many more directors. To meet the need for more directors at Wernersville, the staff invited some of those completing 30-day retreats to join an internship program All had made a novitiate and received a college education, in addition to their experience with Ignatian spirituality.

Interns like Kathryn Fitzgerald were immersed immediately in the experience of giving retreats starting with weekend 2-day retreats. As part of their training program, they were required to offer 12-15 weekend retreats. From this initial pool of interns, some were invited to give two or three 8-day retreats with daily supervision usually covering the 1st week of the Spiritual Exercises. Out of that second group, a few were invited to give two full 30-day retreats. Like at CRD, intern directors lived at Wernersville for all retreats.

Supervision during training

From the start of the Jesuit Center internship program, one-on-one supervision in the form of mentoring on how to give the Exercises[12] was an integral part of the training. During retreats, interns met with a staff person each day to review their experience with retreatants, reviewing retreatants’ engagement with the discernment process, and their faithfulness to the Exercises. For the 8- and 30-day retreats, interns were exposed to three or four different supervisors. This gave the intern exposure to different supervision methods and provided the staff with three perspectives of an intern’s experience as retreat director.

Together supervisor and director would examine how the retreatant was deepening their relationship with God and discerning how to live daily and community life authentically. Details the content of these discussions can be found in a 1975 article[13] on discernment in spiritual directors by Roemer. She describes seven elements of discernment for a spiritual director in the context of retreat direction. These are:

  1. Maintaining an attitude and atmosphere of faith within the interview– this included being drawn into life with God as one accompanies another person in her/his process towards God, living with people who are learning what it means to love and to forgive, and submitting oneself to spiritual direction and as a member of a periodic group supervision.
  2. Consistent and deep prayer –prayer is needed to provide the clarity to be saved from one’s own blindness, remembering one is not the Messiah or Savior of the person being directed but rather an instrument of God. One also needs to pray for the person being directed and to ask God for the grace to share appropriately out of one’s own experience. Giving the Exercises is not just handing the directee something from a book but something from a real life situation helping the retreatant see that directors struggle in prayer and that the experience of prayer is not the same for everyone.
  3. Recognition of one’s own sinfulness: hang ups, addictions, and personal lack of freedom – Each director needs to recognize and recall patterns that interfere with direction. These include difficulty distinguishing between needs of director and retreatant; being unprepared physically and psychologically having false expectations, countertransference, imposing personal causes on a retreatant, being helpful, and wanting results from each session.
  4. Trying to maintain freedom and indifference – Freedom and indifference might include a) letting God deal with the retreatant, b) not feeling one’s life and status depend on the directee’s success in the Exercises, c) freedom from having a prescribed sense of what is going to happen in an interview, and d) freedom from awe of a retreatant whose faith experience and dedication may be far beyond one’s own.
  5. A grounding in facts – A director needs to know their own faith tradition, its theology and prayer practices. Directors who lack the basic content of faith such as the divinity of Jesus, the reality of sin and sinfulness, the three-ness of the Trinity, presents a difficulty, even an obstacle to serious direction.
  6. Looking at something from both sides – This involves deeply listening to what is being said in the retreatant’s framework, bringing it back into oneself and listening to the thinking and feeling response of one’s own organism to that information.
  7. Confirmation of discernment – internal and external confirmation of what was decided, a sense of peace and joy and rightness about what is being decided between the two, and a sense that externally a decision fits well within the context of the retreatant’s life.

Roemer is clear in the article that these seven elements were not to be addressed in supervision as a “checklist.” “Rather, discernment in a director is an art and grace and a process in which several elements interplay. All of them are ‘essential’ in various degrees, leading the director to be ‘co-operative with grace, being sensitive to persons and circumstances, being disciplined not to get in the way so that God can work with His people, being smart enough to know what I don’t know, being willing to study and learn, and growing in an ever-deeper listening to the Spirit.”[14]

In addition to one-on-one supervision, staff and interns would meet for an additional hour of class each retreat day where together they considered a spectrum of topics including Ignatian spirituality, the Spiritual Exercises, Jungian psychology, Myers-Briggs inventories, the Enneagram, and transference/counter-transference. [15]    The goal, according to Schemel was to develop in the spiritual director a “sound theological matrix and a sound psychological matrix[16] As Fitzgerald describes it, “The use of these tools was in service of fostering healthy on-going psychological development of adults which in turn would promote healthy spiritual development.[17]

On-going education for directors and supervisors occurred as the need was uncovered. For example, many directors struggled in direction with retreatants’ dreams[18] so Jungian psychologists were brought into to discuss this.[19] Eventually William Sneck, SJ a Jungian psychologist, joining the staff in the early 1980’s. Carla Desola visited to discuss meditative dance, meditation and contemplation. Other visitors included Natalie Gannon, CND from Notre Dame Academy, English from Guelph and John Futrell, SJ from St. Louis University.[20]

Peer supervision

While one-on-one supervision was the rule at Wernersville for intern directors, the staff[21] participated in peer group supervision.[22]   Schemel, Roemer and the other staff accepted supervision as part of their on-going development saving them from “becoming a guru.”[23] And while the Wernersville peer supervision process was designed to benefit the retreatant what seems distinctive is its strong emphasis on communication skills in supervision. As will be discussed below, this seems to be a direct result of training that Schemel, Roemer and other staff received at Communications Center #1 in St. Louis. [24]

For Schemel, a key goal of peer supervision was improving on “the art of making interventions[25] in a directing situation.[26] While Schemel believed grace to be the most important reality in directing a retreat, learning how to make a “facilitative intervention[27] followed right after it. “How I make an intervention helps me set up the atmosphere of the directing situation so that the other person can feel free, get a hold of his or her experience and issues, and be able to work with them in my presence.”[28]

Schemel describes a good intervention as “crisp,” maximizing the possibility of “bringing the conversation one step further from where it is.” He considers saying too much worse than not speaking at all. “90% of what I know, I never say; the other 10%, I say only at the right time.[29] “When the interventions are done well, the atmosphere that is created in the interview with the director puts the retreatant at ease and allows him or her to explore the thoughts and feelings, the spontaneous movements of affectivity that have arisen during prayer. The interview is held in a non-defensive, simple, human way …that allows the Creator to deal directly with the creature.’[30]

Differing significantly from monthly spiritual direction, a second goal of a facilitative intervention with a retreatant is to move the process of the Spiritual Exercises one step further.[31] For Schemel, this was accomplished by recognizing the “spiritual matrix[32] in an interview as “background” or what is heard from a retreatant.[33] He writes, “For instance, the retreatant is telling me something that fits in the Second Week. Therefore, I need to make an intervention so that the person will move one step further in that Week’s material. In my mind, then, I am moving the person through the Second Week and moving them toward Third Week material…”[34]

While most of the focus in the peer group would be movement through Ignatian Weeks, a presenter in group supervision might request that his or her peers reflect on another “spiritual matrix” such as “how Teresa of Avila would name it, using the Seven Mansions, or I might look for the matrix of the dark nights of St. John of the Cross.” In other sessions, a presenter might ask her or his peers to listen with “a psychological matrix.” Or the focus might be on language, requesting peers to help heighten the presenter’s awareness of how retreatants are using metaphors or images in the interview.

A key goal for peer supervision in this retreat context was an assumption is that all were there to grow. Schemel wrote, “No one comes out of peer group without learning something. It is that kind of ‘what am I going to learn today’ that becomes a necessary attitude as I enter into a session.”[35] As with current supervision practices, confidentiality was stressed as was maintaining time boundaries. Schemel found that two-hour period was sufficient to allow a group to hear two or three cases and reflect on the learnings[36]

Communications Center #1

TIM Blog 4

Communication Center #1, 214 S Meramec Ave, St Louis, MO

In the summer of 1971, just before Wernersville opened, Schemel attended a 30-day communication “laboratory” in St. Louis, MO. The laboratory called Communications Center #1 (CC#1) was run by Joseph Connelly, his wife Eileen Carney Connolly, and two other facilitators who facilitated live-in, five- or thirty-day secular experiences in community aimed towards improving “personal and community communications skills[37] using techniques and concepts developed by Carl Rogers[38] and others. [39]   There Schemel met Roemer who was also attending the seminar, and he told her about Wernersville’s Jesuit Center. Eventually, he asked her to join him there.

Communications Center #1 played an important role in training the Wernersville staff. During the first year or two that the Center was open, all staff went there for further training. Later, the Connolly’s were invited to Wernersville to give 5-day programs on communications for some of the interns.[40]

Some of the skills taught and practiced at Communications Center #1 that Roemer found useful for direction and supervision included:

  • getting in touch with one’s feelings
  • separating one’s feelings from the client’s
  • learning how to best contribute to group sessions
  • learning how conduct good interviews
  • learning how to supervise others[41]
  • learning how to participate in a close-knit group

Communications Center #1 (CC#1) began in 1966, working with high school and college-age students but soon shifted to working with Catholic Church leaders. The workshop used techniques and concepts developed by Carl Rogers[42] and others in the 1960’s.[43]

While Roemer and Schemel attended a 30-day experience, the usual was a five-day workshop with twenty-one to twenty-four participants sorted into one of three so-called C-groups[44] of seven or eight people.[45] Each day, participants attended three, three-hour sessions of small group work.[46] While the workshop content was secular, most of the participants were priests, brothers or sisters in the Catholic Church.[47] Almost all had at least a master’s degree although a few did not.. Participants came from all over the U.S. with a small but significant number of missionaries. [48] Interestingly, while at the workshop participants were forbidden to say where they lived or their vocation.[49][50]

In the group meetings, great emphasis was placed on the “here-and-now.” As Joseph Connolly wrote[51] in his dissertation, “The process is simply ‘what am I feeling here and now in this situation; what am I feeling in regard to myself and in relation to the other, and what is the perception that goes with this feeling.’” As in peer supervision, the feelings and reactions of other C-group members to statements made by a participant were the catalyst for raising unconscious feelings to conscious awareness.

A primary goal of the sessions was to help the speaker distinguish between their perceptions, feelings and cognition. An equally important goal was to blend perception and feelings with the cognition required to express them. This second goal can best be understood by focusing on the word “express.” In contrast to “stating” something, “expressing” implied “congruence” between perception, feeling and cognition. Eileen Connolly, quoting Carl Rogers, describes congruence: [52]When my experiencing of this

moment is present in my awareness, and when what is present in my awareness is present in my communication, then each of these three levels (perception, feeling and cognition) matches. At such moments I am integrated or whole, I am completely in one piece.[53]

The Connolly’s five-day program was not for the faint of heart; C-group discussions were direct and even blunt. Eileen Connolly wrote, “Judgmental feedback is not waived in a Communication Workshop, but rather honest perception of the other and the related feelings were encouraged.”[54] Elsewhere she wrote “The element of threat (was) not eased in a Communication Workshop, but hopefully, the individual comes to recognize himself in threat and then moves himself on past it.”

Supervision training at Communications Center #1[55]

While neither Roemer nor Schemel received direct training in supervision at Communications Center #1, in the fourth (last) week[56] of the program, Schemel and Roemer were paired with one of the staff and a few fellow participants to help co-facilitate a new group of five-day workshop attendees. Roemer believes this last week at Communications Center #1 was a solid introduction to supervision.[57] After each group session, the staff person gave feedback individually to Roemer and Schemel in the presence of other co-facilitators. This experience taught Roemer[58]

  • to work only with material voiced in that group within that hour (“here and now”)
  • that her personal insights were not the same as how she felt about something
  • that contravening a peer group member was not advisable
  • that people have uniqueness and dignity

Schemel echoes Roemer’s belief in the importance of the “here and now,” stating in his chapter on peer supervision, “We are interested, not so much in the case being presented, but rather, what is going on right here in this room at this time. Our emphasis is on these people and what they say to each other.”

Two other aspects of Communications Center #1 worked their way into Schemel’s peer supervision process: learning and practicing communications skills and an uncovering unconscious processes through feedback from others.

Communications skills – More so than current supervision practices for spiritual directors,[59] Schemel’s process focused on communications. He notes that one strength of the peer supervision process is the chance to share intervention experiences with peers, allowing them to give “compliments and criticisms.”[60] By doing so, a director can “check out his or her own communication skills,” reflecting on and possibly improving them. One might also practice interventions[61] and ask others for feedback or to share an intervention they might apply, taking time to analyze the merit of each contribution.

Unconscious processes – Another goal of Schemel’s peer supervision was eliciting underlying theological and psychological “matrices” touched as peers listen to each other. For example, Schemel writes the following:

  • One desired outcome for a peer group presenter is an “opportunity to sharpen some of my awareness about my own thoughts and feelings, about communication patterns that I have, and my own way of going about directing.[62]
  • Peer group helps me become clearer about the way I speak with people in the interview situation, giving me a chance to own my own thoughts, my own feelings, helping me to be up front and direct.”[63]
  • Peer group is a good opportunity to experience familiar dyads and to learn something about one’s own communication patterns so that when one goes into the real directing situation, one is neither intimidated by the directee nor patronizing towards them.”[64]

The first and second bullet points echo the Rogerian desire to express rather than to state, and to have ones thoughts, feelings and perceptions be congruent.

[1] by Sister Judy Roemer OSF and corroborated by Kathyrn Fitzgerald


[3] Tertianship is the final period of formation for Jesuits. During it, a Jesuit in formation will undertake an apostolic placement of teaching or service and undergo a thirty-day silent retreat using the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises. –

[4] E-mail from Sister Judy Roemer – 3/10/15

[5] also called conference retreats

[6] See David Asselin, Notes on Adapting the Exercises of St. Ignatius, Review for Religious, Vol 28, #4, pp. 410-420. A good description of a preached retreat by Barry can be found in a talk by Charles L. Moutenot, S.J. entitled The Spiritual Exercises: My Experience and Where We’re Headed at

[7] At different times, Paul Kennedy was also tertian master to John English and David Asselin who developed their own program at the University of Guelph – personal communication with Kathryn Fitzgerald

[8] Elizabeth Liebert, Perspectives on the Ministry of Spiritual Direction: One Person’s View, New Theology Review, February 2003, pp. 44-56. This perspective was corroborated in a communication with Roemer.

[9] A sense of what was taught in the discernment workshops can be found in an article written by Roemer in Review for Religious titled Discernment in the Director, 34(6) 1975-1976, pp. 949-956

[10] After Schemel left the Center in 1984 to set up a program at the University of Scranton, spiritual direction training became more of the primary focus at Wernersville.

[11] also served as novice master

[12] The CRD group supervision based on the CPE model described in an earlier posting was not used at Wernersville in the early years. About six or seven years into the program, Kathryn Fitzgerald remembers two people coming from CRD to discuss how they did group supervision but she felt little of that was incorporated into the supervision process.

[13] Sister Judith Roemer in Review for Religious titled Discernment in the Director, 34(6) 1975-1976, pp. 949-956

[14] Discernment in the Director, Review for Religious by Sister Judith Roemer OSM, 34(6) 1975-1976, p. 956

[15] Personal communication with Kathryn Fitzgerald – 6-30-15

[16] From Individuation to Discipleship, A Directory For Those Who Give The Spiritual Exercises by

George J. Schemel, S.J. in collaboration with Judith A. Roemer, Institute for Contemporary Spirituality, University of Scranton (2000), Chapter 6, p. 111

[17] Personal communication with Kathryn Fitzgerald – 6-30-15

[18] It is interesting to note the topics that arise in the more intensive live-in retreat setting that would not necessarily arise in programs such as CRD focused on the practice of monthly spiritual direction.

[19] Personal communication with Kathryn Fitzgerald – 6-30-15

[20] Personal communication with Sister Judy Roemer – 3/15/15

[21] Schemel stated that peer supervision participants should be mature, experienced spiritual directors who perceive each other as peers.

[22] This is supervision among colleagues without a trained supervisor overseeing the process.

[23] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 111

[24] Personal communication with Sister Judy Roemer – 3/15/15

[25] Intervention is the term used by Schemel for a director verbally responding to a retreatant’s words in From Individuation to Discipleship

[26]From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 111

George J. Schemel, S.J. in collaboration with Judith A. Roemer, Institute for Contemporary Spirituality, University of Scranton (2000), Chapter 6

[27] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 115

[28] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 115

[29] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 111

[30] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 116

[31] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 115

[32] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 114. Schemel distinguished between spiritual and psychological matrices. A spiritual matrix draws from the spiritual heritage of religious faith while a psychological matrix draws from the expertise of that discipline.

[33]From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 115

[34] From Individuation to Discipleship, pp. 115-116

[35] Schemel

[36] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 115

[37] William Joseph Connelly PhD dissertation, Participation in a Communications Training Laboratory and Actualizing Changes in Church Leaders (1970) Dissertation Abstracts 71-14,180, p. 1

[38] Carl Rogers is considered one of the founders of the humanistic approach (or client-centered approach) to psychology.

[39] St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 16, 2001, obituary for Eileen Carney Connolly.

[40] Personal communication with Sister Judy Roemer – 7 -14-15

[41] See below for more info on supervision at Communications Center #1.

[42] Carl Rogers is considered one of the founders of the humanistic approach (or client-centered approach) to psychology. The C-group method used at CC#1 was derived from his Basic Encounter Group experience – see J. Connolly, p. 39

[43] St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 16, 2001, obituary for Eileen Carney Connolly.

[44] A designation by Joseph Connolly which apparently is a variation on Carl Rogers’ T-group (therapy group)

[45] Eileen Carney PhD dissertation, A Measurement Study of Passively Defensive Person in Communication Workshops, United States International University, Ph.D., (1970) – Dissertation Abstracts 71-14,17, Carl Rogers was one of her thesis advisors.

[46] Other daily communications activities included input sessions providing a conceptual framework for the previous day’s experience, selected readings on current thoughts in the field of communication; and nightly summary sheets on which the participants were asked to record their day’s experience.

[47] William Joseph Connelly PhD Thesis, p. 1

[48] St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 16, 2001, obituary for Eileen Carney Connolly.

[49] Personal communication with Sister Judy Roemer – 7/14/15

[50] Eileen Carney PhD dissertation, p. 6

[51] This parallels a statement by George Schemel in his book From Individuation to Discipleship, see below.

[52] Congruence is one of the attributes Rogers believed required of a therapist that provided “necessary and sufficient conditions” that enable humans to spontaneously grow and seek fulfillment. The conditions

that define the core of his therapy are that (a) two persons are in emotional contact; (b) one of them, called the

client, is troubled; (c) the other, called the therapist, shows genuineness and congruence in the relationship; (d) the therapist experiences and displays unconditional positive regard for the client; (e) the therapist

achieves and expresses an empathic understanding of the client; and (f) the client perceives

the genuineness, positive regard, and empathy of the therapist. Create these conditions, Rogers asserted, and the client will self-actualize in his or her own self-defined directions (Moss, 1998c, pp. 41-43; Rogers,

1957). An excellent explanation of congruence can be found in an article titled Authenticity, Congruence and Transparency by Germain Lietaer ( originally taken from chapter in D. Brazier (Ed.), Beyond Carl Rogers. (1993) London: Constable.

[53] As an aside, this explanation of congruence feels like a more useful response to a directee or retreatant who is “in their head.” An exploration of the experience of “completely in one piece” might serve as a useful contrast.

[54] Eileen Carney dissertation, p. 15

[55] This was not the only supervision training that Roemer received. In the early 80’s, she and Fitzgerald trained with Dr. Larry Maude at the Lehigh Pastoral Counseling Center in Bethlehem, PA where the focus was keeping an intervention “short and sweet: letting the person know that he/she has been heard and take the process one step further.” She notes that Ignatius has a similar guideline about keeping the points for prayer short so that the retreatant may have his/her own insights.

[56] Others at Wernersville only attended the 5-day program

[57] Similar to a facilitated group spiritual direction session

[58] Phone conversation with Sister Judy Roemer,

[59] Such skills practice would be relegated to consultation questions at the end of a supervision session, rather than being a main focus.

[60] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 111

[61] The term used today might be “role play”

[62] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 113

[63] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 113

[64] From Individuation to Discipleship, p. 114


Join our mailing list to receive email about upcoming Together in the Mystery training opportunities.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply