Catechism Error?

[NeedImprovement]

Maybe a quote from vatican.va’s [Compendium o f The Catechism of The Catholic Church ](http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The Dignity of the Human Person) could help clarify . It tends to provide a broader overview.

Dignity of The Human Person

365. Why does everyone have a right to exercise freedom?

**1738
1747 **

The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or her dignity as a human person. Therefore this right must always be respected, especially in moral and religious matters, and it must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and a just public order.

 

[aquinasg]

The last two posters still don’t see the problem? I tried to explain it multiple times on here.

Someone else on her (who tried to explain the meaning of Pius IX by traslating the footnoted documents) denied that governments can rightly and justly promote Catholicism, contra Gregory XVI Pius IX Leo XIII and Benedict XV (and the footnotes of VIII and the CCC).

A right to be free from something is NOT the same as being free or at liberty to do it or “exercise” it.

Vatican II was ambiguous enough; if you compare Fr. Brian Harrison’s book to Michael Davies’s, one has to interprete “public order” as the “common good” from Vatican II (which I guess is alright, since Gregory XVI and others said that the public order was in danger because of freedom given to non-Catholics), and the principle of subsidiarity must be employed to reconcile Vatican II with Leo XIII (a point Fr. Harrison failed to make).

But the Catechism is worse; HORRIFICALLY so

 

[Dan_Daly]

1747 The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.

That’s from the new Catechism. Does it not clearly say that people have a right to practice false religions. I know VII only said “a right to freedom from coercion”, which is a protective right, not a right to do something wrong. But the CCC is different. If “especially in religious matters” means “only correct religious beliefs” than the second sentence makes no sense.

It is a difficult one to wrap your head around, in large part because of the various meanings people attach to the word “right”.

My understanding, is that God gives all people free will. Not even God violates this, and man does not have the power to either. You can torture someone, drug them, oppress them, beat them, intimidate them, etc, but you can not take their will. The same thing goes for the devil. He can do many things, but he can not take your will- unless you give it to him on your own.

So while someone should not worship a false god, they have the ability to do so. We also have a duty to follow our conscience, BUT that conscience must be properly formed.

Catholics have a duty to evangelize, and the goal is and should be that every single person becomes a faithful Catholic.

Pax and God bless.

 

[MarkThompson]

Someone else on her (who tried to explain the meaning of Pius IX by traslating the footnoted documents) denied that governments can rightly and justly promote Catholicism, contra Gregory XVI Pius IX Leo XIII and Benedict XV (and the footnotes of VIII and the CCC).

No, I really didn’t, but try using the “Quote” feature and see if you can point out for us the specific place where I did so.

A right to be free from something is NOT the same as being free or at liberty to do it or “exercise” it.

I’m actually not sure you understand what rights are at all. Rights can only be discussed with reference to the party against whom the right can be exercised (i.e., against whom it protects). Thus, for instance, the right to “freedom of speech” is inapplicable to discussions of a family argument: the right can be exercised only against the government, not against a parent who punishes you for talking back or a spouse who kicks you to the couch for being an insensitive jerk. Simili modo, the civil right to “freedom of religion” has no place in a discussion of how God will judge you and whether he will send you to Heaven or Hell. Nobody is claiming that it does, except indifferentists.

Let me say it again: rights and freedoms can only be understood with reference to the party against whom the right can be exercised. The Syllabus (and Maxima Quidem and Inter Multiplices) condemn the proposition that we have a moral right – a right before God – to believe and behave however we think best, in the light of our own personal reason. The Catechism is in complete agreement; see CCC §§ 37-38, 84 et seq., 1786,1790-92, etc. By contrast, when it speaks of religious freedom, it is expressly talking about social and political rights, that is, rights that can be exercised against men and governments of men. (“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. . . . . This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority . . . .”) The Church has never dogmatically taught the opposite proposition: that civil governments must have the ability to restrict their subjects’ exercise of the freedom of thought and religious choice “within the limits of the common good and public order.” Consequently, there is no contradiction. As to the perceived contradiction between the Catechism and the Syllabus, again, the latter is dealing with “rights against God,” and the former with rights against men.

But the Catechism is worse; HORRIFICALLY so

Oh, calm down.

 

[NeedImprovement]

One of the nice things about the QUOTE button is that we can present more precisely the parts of another post we either don’t understand, or wish to question or agree with. There’s a fairly simple way to do it :

1. 
   *]Click “QUOTE” button of the post you are replying to.
   
   *]Delete parts which don’t pertain directly and indicate this has been done ; I prefer the ellipsis " … " ; some simply write “snip” instead .( Be careful not to disturb square brackets and their contents which enclose the quote).
   *]Add your own comments.
   
   *]Click *Preview Post *button to make sure it’s the way you want it.
   
   *]If all that works, click *Submit Reply * like when you regularly post ( * it may also happen , that one may find the occasional yelling of “Incoming !!”, to be helpful in keeping things real. ).

 

[Mrs_Sally]

How can God give someone a right to choose something opposed to His will?

We all have that right. It is called free will. We choose things opposed to his will all the time, every day. And as catholics, we have the opportunity to correct that in sacramental confession.

Along with our free will, we have the duty as Catholics to evangelize and show others the error of their ways. We draw them to the grace of God through our love for them.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of the advantages of the QUOTE function in action demonstrated :

1747 The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.

… Does it not clearly say that people have a right to practice false religions…

No that isn’t really what it is saying at all. It is saying that people (or specifically, each of us) have the freedom to act in regards to religious and moral beliefs as each of us sees fit, including (if you must) the practice of false religions . If that weren’t true, then we wouldn’t have the freedom to practice the one true religion either.

Presently, my thoughts echo those of a fellow member - that the misunderstanding is likely to be rooted somewhere in this vicinity:

No, I really didn’t, but try using the “Quote” feature and see if you can point out for us the specific place where I did so.

I’m actually not sure you understand what rights are at all. Rights can only be discussed with reference to the party against whom the right can be exercised (i.e., against whom it protects) …

Although a right or the moral power of a right is said to extend to an individual , it is actually in that individual’s exercising or claiming of the right
Mark Thompson:

… with reference to the party against whom the right can be exercised …

… that an alleged (putative) right can be proven to exist .

Working examples are sometimes the best way to demonstrate the difference between freedom and a right.

Consider the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis :

Obviously they already believed in God – He spoke with them.

God said of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden [Genesis 3:3] “You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die."

Did Adam and Eve have the freedom to eat of that fruit ? Yes, they did – even though God said, “You shall not eat it or even touch it , lest you die.”
“Lest you die” , was letting them/us know the consequences of that action.

This is a good working example of the definition of freedom according to Father John Hardon S.J.’s Modern Catholic Dictionary

FREEDOM. Immunity from determination or compulsion; hence the absence of all antecedent necessity, whether internal (from within a person’s will ) or external (from an outside source).

Even after God giving them a commandment (so to speak) forbidding the eating of the fruit, and explaining the consequences, they were still free to exercise their free will and eat of it if they so chose.

Did they have a right to eat of the fruit ? God says they didn’t . A weak argument might be made in the direction of the man and the woman thinking they had some sort of putative right to eat of the fruit based on theri ability or freedom to do so …

… But , when we examine** intention** - wrapped in the sly seduction of the serpent, (notice the blatant lie, followed by the half-truth):

[Genesis 3:4-5]
But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”

… What Adam and Eve are actually asserting by their actions is first that God is a liar, and second that they have the right to be God .

Then, of course, subsequently everything hit the fan.uch:

But God, in his providence, drawing good from evil came to us in the person of Jesus Christ and conferred on us a loftier calling – the right to become sons and daughters of God [John 1:12] 2 Corinthians 6:17-18] .

This freedom (which my dad used to say can be a “terrible freedom” at times ) is something sacred to God. Without it, as posted earlier, we could not love Him.

 

[aquinasg]

Some of the advantages of the QUOTE function in action demonstrated :

It simply doesn’t say people “have freedom” or free will, but that people have a **right **to the **exercise ** of that freedom, which could be interpreted to mean people have a **right **to perform non-Christian religious acts. The CCC is poorly ambiguous here, although I admited it wasn’t heresy

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

It simply doesn’t say people “have freedom” or free will, but that people have a **right **to the **exercise ** of that freedom, which could be interpreted to mean people have a **right **to perform non-Christian religious acts. The CCC is poorly ambiguous here, although I admited it wasn’t heresy

One Thomist to another, being that our very nature demands non-interpretive clarity in speech and the written word, I understand your position. Let us pray a new council will form in our life time to clear the smoke of Vatican II and put an end to it’s interpretive nature. I saw your previous posts about sedevacantism, always remember that we should always remain loyal to the Church not just in dogma, but in canon law as well. What’s at fault with those heretics is that they forgo the formal processes of the Church and make themselves the Magisterium. Let us pray they return home.

 

[aquinasg]

I saw your previous posts about sedevacantism, always remember that we should always remain loyal to the Church

Ye this whole sedevacantism thing has ruined my peace of mind for the time being.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It simply doesn’t say people “have freedom” or free will, but that people have a **right **to the **exercise ** of that freedom, which could be interpreted to mean people have a **right **to perform non-Christian religious acts. The CCC is poorly ambiguous here, although I admited it wasn’t heresy

… Glad to see you got the hang of the Quote function aquinasg.

I’ve read your posts on this thread several times now, and I’m squinting a little less … Hoping this makes some kind of sense to you working from Fr. John Hardon S.J. 's definition of imputability :

IMPUTABILITY.

The moral responsibility for one’s human actions. A person is accountable to God only for his or her deliberate actions. They are acts performed with knowledge of what one is doing and with the consent of the will. In order to gauge the accountability of a particular action, one must consider the degree of deliberateness involved. If a person’s knowledge of the nature of the act or his or her consent is diminished, the imputability will be lessened. Catholic moral theology recognizes six chief hindrances to full imputability: ignorance, fear, passion, habits, violence, and mental disorder. (Etym. Latin in-, in + putare, to consider: imputare, to bring a fault into the reckoning; to ascribe.)

I’ll tell you where a light went on when I was re-reading your posts : If we were to say someone has a *" right to perform non-Christian religious acts " *, it could possibly be interpreted as meaning we each have a right to be unjust and to not render to God the praise and thanks which is His due. That would be an offense against justice. So I’m in agreement with you - we can’t say that.

(* I had to break it into 2 posts here because I exceeded the limit of permissible characters) …

 

[NeedImprovement]

continued …

… Let’s begin the second part with the CCC’s reference to the dignity of the human person.

ARTICLE 3
MAN’S FREEDOM

1730
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

Then, review what the CCC says about our freedom; that is, the freedom to act or not to act.

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

**1731 **
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude

Touch lightly on the direct consequences of each act.

1732
As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Note what the extended consequences are , and the definition of freedom in its truest sense.

**1733 **
The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”

Glance at the section on imputability.

**1735 **
Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

And bring it all together with CCC 1738 :

**1738 **
Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.

Factoring in Fr. Hardon’s definition of imputability, I believe it can be said that “The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person”, may be interpreted as : The right to the freedom to act or to not act, in accordance with one’s beliefs, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.

For an extreme example: Does that mean I have a right to murder someone if I want to ? - No, that would be an abuse of freedom.

Similarly , if one had full knowledge of the Catholic religion, or another Christian religion and deliberately, with consent of their will decided they were going to follow a religion which worshipped self instead of the one true God, that would also be an abuse of freedom. ( I was endeavoring to point out in the example of Adam and Eve that each time we sin, this element of choosing self over God is usually mixed in there somewhere too).

But as the definition says, “Catholic moral theology recognizes six chief hindrances to full imputability: ignorance, fear, passion, habits, violence, and mental disorder.”

Often times people are born into certain environments. I don’t (personally) think that those who “choose” religions other than ours can actually know what they’re missing. If they clearly understood that they could be united intimately with God every day in the Holy Eucharist , why would they ever want to go anywhere else ?

 

[Genesis315]

The doctrine on religious liberty is a complex one. Here’s a really good (and long) essay on this topic (you have to download the pdf–you may need to be signed in to facebook):

kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink/Papers/647475/What_is_the_Catholic_doctrine_of_religious_liberty

In a nutshell, the traditional principles are as follows:

1. There are two spheres governed by two powers: the temporal governed by the State and the spiritual governed by the Church.
2. The State may coerce those within its jurisdiction in temporal matters (such as the natural law–this is what the criminal penal code is all about, for example).
3. The Church may coerce those subject to its jurisdiction in spiritual matters.(Can. 1311 — Nativum et proprium Ecclesiae ius est christifideles delinquentes poenalibus sanctionibus coercere. (1983 Code of Canon Law)). Those subject to its jurisdiction are the Baptized (cf. Canon 204).

The State may only coerce the Baptized when those in power are themselves members of the Church and are acting on behalf the Church and according to the will of the Church–since then it is the Church’s power of coercion being exercised (this practice can be found primarily in the medieval age of Christendom, when the Church and State were essentially the same society).

Neither the Church nor the State may coerce the unbaptized in spiritual matters since the state has no coercive power over spiritual matters and the unbaptized are not within the Church’s jurisdiction.

Vatican II’s Decree on Religious Liberty and the corresponding sections of the Catechism are only addressing the fact that the political authority has no right in and of itself to coerce in spiritual matters. That decree and those sections do not address the Church’s coercive power. They speak only of a right before the State, not a right before the Church or before God.

The state may also place limits on religious freedom when the common good requires (this is affirmed explicitly by the CCC and less clearly by Vatican II’s Decree). This idea is what was at issue primarily in the famous 19th century Magisterial interventions on these matters (as well as the matter of the supernatural obligation of faith as opposed to the absolute freedom of reason alone). They condemn certain absolutist claims to an unlimited freedom, but do not mean to assert the opposite absolute.

This is best exemplified by Bl. Cardinal Newman’s analysis of Bl. Pius IX’s Quanta Cura found here:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html

See also the following texts from Newman on the Syllabus and on Conscience which may also be helpful here:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

Anyway, point being, there is error on these points in the Catechism.

 

[ExLibris]

There is no error in our infallible and most perfect doctrine.

 

[promethius]

It simply doesn’t say people “have freedom” or free will, but that people have a **right **to the **exercise **of that freedom, which could be interpreted to mean people have a **right **to perform non-Christian religious acts. The CCC is poorly ambiguous here, although I admited it wasn’t heresy

I know you’ve been banned, but perhaps you’re lurking here and will read this.

I’d like to clarify a couple of concepts for you:

1. Rights are only restrictions against interference by other men. When we say you have a right to life, we mean that no other can unjustly remove your life without suffering the penalty of mortal sin. This does not mean that God doesn’t have a right to take your life, because ultimately God holds the arbitration on all matters of justice.
2. The right to freedom of religion and practice thereof is, therefore a restriction on use of force by other men to limit the practice of freedom of religion. In other words, this passage of the catechism is not saying that it IS right to practice false religions, it is merely saying that it is ALSO wrong to forbid others to worship according to their belief.
3. The error referenced by Pius was inclusive of the concept that these other religions were selected in full light of reason… an assertion that somehow pagan and catholic faiths are “logically equivalent”. It has little to do with the practice of religions other than christianity being stopped by force.
4. Leaving the church is doing exactly what you claim is wrong: embracing an error. In other words, this is a logical contradiction that you think no one has the right to practice false religion and that you would yet abandon the church…

 

[rfpapcun]

Two points to make here:

First, catechisms can contain errors. They are not magisterial.

Second, Fr. Brian Harrison is a very learned and likeable priest. But as to his argument on religious liberty being traditional, I just can’t buy it. Anytime you have to twist yourself into an intellectual pretzel to “prove” your point, it just isn’t persuasive.

 

[Warrenton]

There is no contradiction in the Magisterium. Perhaps you should talk to your priest about it. Heuchler explained it well. People are free to choose, and have the right to choose, (by the gift of free will given to us by God), the religion of their choice. They may choose incorrectly but that’s their choice (they may have even been born into that religion). There’s nothing more to say about it.

There is a lot more to say about it.

No one has a “right” to go to perdition. Hell is a punishment, not a right.

Choosing a false religion jeopardizes one’s immortal soul. That is totally clear from scripture as well as over a thousand years of Church teaching, going back to the Fathers.

If we have the right to choose another religion, then we have the right to practice another religion. If the right is God-given, it follows that being a Catholic is not required for salvation.

God would not give us a right that would result in perdition.

There is another possibility, though it does considerable violence to Catholic logic.

We have a right to choose mortal sin. Therefore, all sin is rightful, and by extension, no effort to suppress sin is rightful.

This is anarchy.

There is a third possibility. These recent statements are meant only in the context of civil rights, and convey no moral lesson other than to reinterpret, temporarilly, in the unique prevailing circumstances, the precept that one should be charitable to one’s neighbor.

If the last is the case, it is troubling, because it seems somewhat out of step with the way the Church usually has taught.

 

[fhansen]

So its a right to chose error. This was condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII. I am starting to consider sedevacantism to be honest

God gave us all the right to choose error-starting with Adam & Eve.

 

[fhansen]

So its a right to chose error. This was condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII. I am starting to consider sedevacantism to be honest

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the freedom to choose error-but I think His sole command to them would be the denial of the *right *to choose it. Nonetheless, He obviously deemed it right to allow them to decide for themselves. We’re all born in ignorance now-who should or would force us to change?

 

[ANNE_2]

Two points to make here:
First, catechisms can contain errors. They are not magisterial.
Second, Fr. Brian Harrison is a very learned and likeable priest. But as to his argument on religious liberty being traditional, I just can’t buy it. Anytime you have to twist yourself into an intellectual pretzel to “prove” your point, it just isn’t persuasive.

I assume the original poster was talking about the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which is on the Vatican web site.

This Catechism is from the Magisterium.
It contains NO Errors.
Please read the first twelve pages in the CCC.
The following statement is included:

" From APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “FIDEI DEPOSITUM ”
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.
I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm