Process for Revising the Catechism


#1

Is Pope Francis’ revision to the Catechism a done deal, or is it subject to debate or other process? How long does it take for a proposed revision to take effect?


#2

I read somewhere this morning that all subsequent publications of the Catechism will include the revised CCC 2267, starting today, August 2nd. So seems like it’s a done deal


#3

I put a post asking about this on Spirituality section. Wouldn’t it be a group of Cardinals to revise, correct or change something in the CCC because it was a group of them that developed the CCC?


#4

I couldn’t find an appropriate place for it, so I put it here as a means of explaining the internal workings of the Catholic Church.


#5

Apparently not. The change has been made.


#6

Is this an ex cathedra thing or another way of declaration of something binding on the faithful?

So a pope can change the catechism just like that?


#7

#8

Does the CCC has jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches? @dochawk


#10

The issue concerns confusing the faithful with what is easily mistaken for heresy.


#12

What I’m saying is that poor choice of words is quite capable of confusing the faithful, and thereby scandalizing them.


#14

When he speaks of the death penalty as being contrary to human dignity, he gives the impression that it is an intrinsic evil, or worse, that “intrinsic” evil is not intrinsic at all, but rather conditioned on time and place.


#16

“Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.”

You can’t tell me that it’s not easy to read that as a repudiation of historical teaching on the authority of the State to punish crime.


#17

From Father Z’s blog

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/08/quaeritur-if-something-is-in-the-catechism-do-i-have-to-give-in-believe-it-even-though-it-is-different-from-what-the-catechism-taught-before/


#18

Pope Francis said the death penalty is inadmissible. That is vastly different from the rest of the pope’s stances, which was that it was admissible in certain circumstances. Not one ever in the history of the pontificate stated that the death penalty is always wrong.


#21

Absolutely. It is the catechism for the entire Catholic Church, not just the Latin Church. Also, the Eastern Churches have a lot less autonomy than you seem to think. They are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, just like Catholics in the Latin Church.


#22

I don’t think the Church ever taught that the death penalty is ALWAYS right. But it HAS taught that it is permissible in certain situations. That’s why so many popes said it was allowable in certain circumstances.

Exactly. If you even look in the Bible, many cases are made for the death penalty. Look to the Church Fathers and they say the same thing.


#23

I printed out the new wording and taped it to the first blank pages of my copy of the Catechism, thereby making it official.


#25

And yet, I take issue with his lack of clarity, even as I took issue with Pope Benedict XVI talking about the use of condoms by homosexual prostitutes, for in these days of abysmal catechesis, such things serve to confuse more than enlighten.


#26

Here’s my story and I’m sticking to it:

"ONLY God created life and ONLY God can rightly take a life."


#27

I’m struggling with this as well, this is where the contradiction seems to be:
old: the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty

new: the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.

a simple understanding seems to be two contradictory things “The death penalty is admissible under certain theoretical circumstances”, and "the death penalty is admissible under no theoretical circumstances.

To me it makes sense if we see it in light of semantics, perhaps the old idea of “death penalty”, and the new concept of “death penalty”, are not the same. the new concept being “punishment for the sake of punishment, to teach consequences”, while the old concept could mean “necessarily ending a life as a means to stop violence”. Semantics is the only way I can really see of resolving the contradiction.

Otherwise, we would need to admit that previous popes were wrong. or that “the traditional teaching of the church” is not necessarily set in stone accurate.

or unwritten in the text is the subtextual modifier: “In practical, non theoretical circumstances of the world, currently”(the death penalty is inadmissible).

To summarize, one can easily understand new teaching to mean “the death penalty in any shape or form is an objective moral evil.” which contradicts the teaching that it wasn’t objectively wrong in all circumstances,

Hope that wasn’t too confusing.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.