Catechism in one month

[sirach2v4]

Reading the Catechism: My experience

It took me one month to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, considering the time I had to spend on it (I am retired). A few days ago, I really “hit” it, and read about 60 pages in one day.

A few years ago, on EWTN, Fr. John Corapi was encouraging people to read the CCC. He said it was easy to read. From simply looking up one subject or another in the past, I didn’t think it was easy to read, even in part.

But, I actually set a goal of reading four pages a day, which would have taken me almost six months to read it. (There are 688 pages of text.)

BUT

I found that it was easier to read than I thought it would be. Moreover, I found that I liked reading it – very spiritually rewarding. It was very intensely Biblical.

I read it WITHOUT the “companion” book – which has all the footnotes of the Catechism expanded out, so one wouldn’t have to look them all up, on every page. I should have invested in the companion book.

I found that it was very well written. There are noticeable changes in writing style from time to time, some sections more technical than others.

I used a yellow highlighter, a pencil, and a pen for making marginal notes and highlighting.

The book is very well-written and spiritually very worth the effort. I am sorry that I put it off for so long.

There is sort of a problem in it, from my point of view, which I will discuss in another in a later post in this thread. It centers around the use of the word "disorder."

 

[sirach2v4]

Here’s the source of the problem:

**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, take this for an example

2355** Prostitution** does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

So, from the latter paragraph, we see that something is “gravely” wrong, and may even be done deliberately, but then, there’s no imputability which is to say, the person is not committing a grave sin – it’s not imputed to them.

How can this be?

Another example is that of masturbation, where the catechism says

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

What practical guidance is here? I don’t really see it. Can one judge for him/herself that their moral culpability is minimal? or that there is no imputability?

In the case of homosexuality, wouldn’t that classify as a “psychological” prolblem, i.e. a disorder, where there would be thus no imputability?

The catechism seems to break off the discussion at a critical point, with no practical advice for the person who invests reading the 668 pages, at least on this score.

 

[JRKH]

I got here from your other thread…and I think that possibly the reason you did not get replies here may have had to do with the thread title…But -

Here’s the source of the problem:

**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, take this for an example

2355** Prostitution** does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

So, from the latter paragraph, we see that something is “gravely” wrong, and may even be done deliberately, but then, there’s no imputability which is to say, the person is not committing a grave sin – it’s not imputed to them.

How can this be?

Another example is that of masturbation, where the catechism says

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

What practical guidance is here? I don’t really see it. Can one judge for him/herself that their moral culpability is minimal? or that there is no imputability?

In the case of homosexuality, wouldn’t that classify as a “psychological” prolblem, i.e. a disorder, where there would be thus no imputability?

The catechism seems to break off the discussion at a critical point, with no practical advice for the person who invests reading the 668 pages, at least on this score.

Something that needs to be remembered about the Catechism (as you would have read) is that it is written to and for - not the general faithful - but the Bishops as a “sure norm ofr teaching” and to aid them in writing local Catechisms. Priests and Bishops who would be dealing with these matters in confession and counseling have received training that supplies the “practical advice” that you are looking for.
For this reason - when people ask specific “sin” questions here we always advise them to ask their confessor or Spiritual director or pastor.

Hope this helps a little

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

First off it is good to note that the Catechism was primarily addressed to Bishops --that of course does not mean that it is not for you and I to read (indeed it is very good and it has “taken off” in popularity and usefulness)–but it is good to note that. It is as you say an excellent text and very apt for Spiritual reading as well as Study.

Now to the question.

What it is getting at there is that such and such (prostitution etc) is in itself a grave matter – it is a grave (mortal) sin objectively. It is a very serious evil.

But then the question turns on the “subjective” culpability – that is the level of guilt a particular person may have. And it notes that there can be such things that “lessen” that subjective guilt. Not that the person can then say “oh my guilt is lessened so I can do it” but there is the reality that in some cases – a particular person may not have actually* committed a mortal sin* even when they engaged in such. For example they may have been forced against their will.

So while it (the “Intrinsic evil”) is always gravely sinful --on the objective level – it is always a serious evil – there may be “lessened” culpability on the part of some who have done the particular thing.

Now as to assessment of a particular persons guilt --usually such might happen in confession – a person confesses the thing and the Priest asks questions and judges that the person did not commit a mortal sin. So usually practically speaking it is a regular confessor or confessor in a particular case who is involved in so judging. As the saying goes we are not the best judge in our own case.

As to the question of homosexuality – yes it is a “disorder” but like other “disorders” often – one does not start with an idea of “no imputablity” in terms of that which is committed. One has to take it “case by case”. Many persons with “same sex attraction” live very very chaste Christian lives. Just as many who have even strong temptations towards the opposite sex --by the grace of God and mortification live very chaste lives (or if they fall -repent quickly and strive to live chastity).