Paul talks about catechesis (§44) then as another form of evangelism. Is this not more of the same? I suspect that Vatican II blew a whole in rigorous catechesis and I have heard of people being confirmed after attending one or two classes. Which is better than nothing. But not much better.
He then discusses (§45) using the media--mass communication--to reach people. This goes on here in the Middle East, but not by Catholics. Only by evangelicals, and they do a great job at it too. (Obviously the intrepid and indomitable Abouna Zacarias is a fine exception among the Oriental Orthodox; though I would in all honest call him evangelical Orthodox.) So there is an opening there, waiting for someone to step through.
I have long said that some Muslims find the free-church, do-what-you-wanna-do model of worship unattractive even if they are attracted to Christian doctrine and the person of Christ--this point is incontrovertible. They might well be attracted to Catholicism. But no one is exposing them to Catholic liturgy, worship, theology, tradition, or thought. I am serious when I say that I could foresee hundreds (or thousands) of converts if there were just one televised, Arabic-language mass per day on satellite TV. There would be some discussion before and after about what different symbols mean and the various parts of the mass and how they fit together (ie, offertory, procession, the readings, the elevation, etc.) as well a decent and stirring sermon.
I have noted before that Paul VI goes to great lengths, again and again, to preserve a very balanced picture of society that resists either collectivism or individualism. And here, in §46, we find this again: he posits that there is, in the end, no substitute for personal contact. He ties this in to Confession (aka, the sacrament of Penance), but in doing this does he perhaps not betray a slight hierarchical bent? (Hierarchy means, quite literally, rule of a high priest.)
In any case, he is trying to balance the collectivist nature of media-based proclamation with individual relational evangelism. But this would have been the perfect place to affirm what is central to evangelicalism, and what makes it (at times) so successful: that the obligation and ability and call to evangelize belongs to each and every Christian at all times and in all places. He gets half way there by talking about how we can share our testimony: "In the long run, is there any other way of handing on the Gospel than by transmitting to another person one's personal experience of faith?"
But he doesn't close the deal :-( And, as was mentioned, falls back to Penance, which is not even open to the unbaptized.
