Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[Ender]

Sorry if it just seems repetitive - and I appreciate that there is a discussion about this in light of tradition - however isn’t the Catechism the final word on Catholic teaching?

No, not if 2267 is in fact the prudential opinion of JPII. As I said, even the USCCB seems unwilling to accept it as doctrine.

Therefore we have no need to reconcile any discrepancy right?

This comment is both surprising and unsurprising. It is in fact surprising to hear you say that you have no need to really think about this particular teaching. I’m rather sure you think about other teachings, trying to understand and apply them - why is this one different? On the other hand, the unsurprising aspect of your comment is that the teaching is in fact inexplicable and by not thinking about it you eliminate the difficulty it actually presents.

Your response to every argument is the same: it’s in the Catechism. This is true but insufficient - so is 2260. How do you presume that one section (2267) carries more weight than another (2260)? The only statement existent in the entire history of the Church that constrains the use of capital punishment is 2267. It appears you take the position that this is all that matters because you personally oppose capital punishment; that is, your opinion on the topic dictates the evidence you will consider. I have been led to the position that capital punishment is obligatory because I have studied what the Church has said - and says today - and that conclusion seems inescapable.

Ender

 

[4elise]

No, not if 2267 is in fact the prudential opinion of JPII. As I said, even the USCCB seems unwilling to accept it as doctrine.

This comment is both surprising and unsurprising. It is in fact surprising to hear you say that you have no need to really think about this particular teaching. I’m rather sure you think about other teachings, trying to understand and apply them - why is this one different? On the other hand, the unsurprising aspect of your comment is that the teaching is in fact inexplicable and by not thinking about it you eliminate the difficulty it actually presents.

Your response to every argument is the same: it’s in the Catechism. This is true but insufficient - so is 2260. How do you presume that one section (2267) carries more weight than another (2260)? The only statement existent in the entire history of the Church that constrains the use of capital punishment is 2267. It appears you take the position that this is all that matters because you personally oppose capital punishment; that is, your opinion on the topic dictates the evidence you will consider. I have been led to the position that capital punishment is obligatory because I have studied what the Church has said - and says today - and that conclusion seems inescapable.

Ender

OK… I appreciate your point, really. And I think we all do this - accept the teaching with out question when it fits what we believe, when it is a good fit already, question it when it doesn’t. For you - this doesn’t fit so you question it. But looking at both (18) and (85) this leads me to view what is presented is the teaching of the Church - and not just the opinion of JPII., or I don’t see how it would be included in the Catechism -

*(I’ll be away for a few days - so won’t be ignoring your posts… but signing off here for a few days… blessings!) *

 

[Ender]

But looking at both (18) and (85) this leads me to view what is presented is the teaching of the Church - and not just the opinion of JPII., or I don’t see how it would be included in the Catechism -

This is certainly a reasonable position to take but there is a great deal of evidence that it is not correct.

USCCB, 2005: " The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation …"

Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004:* “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”*

Cardinal Dulles, 2001: " *The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."
*
Karl Keating, 2004: " Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience."

R. Michael Dunnigan, 2003 (Canon lawyer): " Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching."

Dennis Teti, 2002 (Professor, Hillsdale College): " The most reasonable explanation for the current pope’s stance on this question is that his opposition is an exercise in prudence …"

Kevin L. Flannery S.J., 2007 (Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome): *“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view.” *

Ender

 

[Portrait]

Dear 4elise,

The requirements of justice are not met by life time incarceration (even without the possibility of parole) because God Himself established capital punishment as the retribution to be meted out to the person who wantonly and wilfully takes the life of another (Genesis 9: 6). The whole rationale for the death penalty is the divine image in man, as I have pointed out in previous threads. Any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

As regards the perpetuity of the instituition of capital punishment, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it is as true today as it was in Noahs day? Progressive revelation and development has not modified (witness the teaching of the Church throughout the ages) and indeed cannot modify the original mandate of Genesis 9: 6.

Therefore in light of this the faithful have a right to ask why the Church in recent years has ignored this retributive aspect which is rooted in the original divine mandate.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

PART II

Dear 4Elise,

The Catechism states that the “Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (Para. 86). Now how does this square with our Church’s current teaching, or rather lack of it, on capital punishment? Undeniably, they have modified the wording of the previous 1992 edition and, what is more worrisome, in so doing have modified Sacred Scripture. At the very least they are choosing to ignore the biblical concept of retributive justice and the divine mandate of Genesis: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9: 6). As I said in my previous thread, this is the whole rationale for the death penalty and is of perpetual relevance and continuing validity, so why has our Church, which claims “not to be superior to the word of God”, decided to dispense with it? Moreover if it was only teaching “what had been handed on to it”, then clearly it would be asserting without reservation the retributive aspect of capital punishment, since that is what the Church has consistently taught hitherto. That to me, and many others, seems an inescapable conclusion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[severus68]

There are several posts about the past history of the Church, biblical times and teachings and God demanding the death sentence.

The OT has several references to death as punishment. There is also reference in the OT to other penalties like stoning . An"eye for an eye" is from the OT. God made a new covenant with Man with the coming of Christ. Christ never spoke of or condoned the death penalty if you read the Gospels. Instead he spoke of forgiveness and love.

There were many things done in the name of Christ and in the name of the Church and by those governing the Church in the past that we now know were wrong or at least we have come to realise were not what Christ taught…If we can’t accept what is taught by the Church today then why should we accept what was said or taught by the Church in the past. I find it a ridiculous argument that the Church and thus we, should go backwards in time and attitude rather look forward.

 

[Portrait]

Dear severus68,

Thankyou for your contribution to the current debate on the death penalty.

As I remarked in my previous two postings God’s sanction of capital punishment has perpetual validity and permanent relevance since there cannot be a discontinuation of the fact that man was made in the image of God, that would be simply illogical as it would be impossible also.

Therefore the New Testament not suprisingly continues the Old Testament’s affirmation of the legitimacy of the death penalty and indeed does not rescind those provisions (see Rom. 13: 4; Acts 25 11). If this is the case then how can the present day Church do so since the “Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (i.e. Sacred Scripture and Tradition)?, Para. 86 C.C.C. Moreover, how can the faithful accept what the Church teaches today if it is not consonant with Sacred Scripture, in this instance by a serious omission? “The Magisterium is not superior to the word of God” and cannot thus trump it.

With reference to your point about our Lord not approving of the death penalty in the Gospels, this proves absolutely nothing. It is manifestly untenable to suppose that He would wish to rescind the original divine mandate, for clearly the whole rationale for capital punishment is the divine image in man and an attack on this image is deemed an outrage against God. Thus Jesus knew fully well that no progressive revelation could alter the original mandate of Genesis 9: 6. John Murray has observed that as there has been no abrogation of man’s being in the image of God, the rationale given for the death penalty in Genesis 9 “…is as true today as it was in the days of Noah” (John Murray, Principles of Conduct, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1957, p. 112). Moreover the argument from silence is a double-edged sword, I mean one could assert that by His silence he had no intention to abrogate the divine mandate and was thus continuing to approve of it. Indeed the rest of the N.T. would appear to corroborate this rather than invalidate it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[4elise]

PART II

Dear 4Elise,

The Catechism states that the “Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (Para. 86). Now how does this square with our Church’s current teaching, or rather lack of it, on capital punishment? Undeniably, they have modified the wording of the previous 1992 edition and, what is more worrisome, in so doing have modified Sacred Scripture. ** At the very least they are choosing to ignore the biblical concept of retributive justice** and the divine mandate of Genesis: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9: 6). As I said in my previous thread, this is the whole rationale for the death penalty and is of perpetual relevance and continuing validity, so why has our Church, which claims “not to be superior to the word of God”, decided to dispense with it? Moreover if it was only teaching “what had been handed on to it”, then clearly it would be asserting without reservation the retributive aspect of capital punishment, since that is what the Church has consistently taught hitherto. That to me, and many others, seems an inescapable conclusion.

Warmest good wishes,
Portrait

What seems an inescapable conclusion to me and many others, given the latest CCC is that the Church has determined that the retributive justice can be met with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - this too recognizes that man is made in God’s image - even the man who takes the life of another - he too is made in God’s image - when the goal of protecting society can be met with an appropriate retributive sentence - then this has been satisfied.

God Bless,

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

Thankyou for your contribution to the current debate on the death penalty.

As I remarked in my previous two postings God’s sanction of capital punishment has perpetual validity and permanent relevance since there cannot be a discontinuation of the fact that man was made in the image of God, that would be simply illogical as it would be impossible also.

Therefore the New Testament not suprisingly continues the Old Testament’s affirmation of the legitimacy of the death penalty and indeed does not rescind those provisions (see Rom. 13: 4; Acts 25 11). If this is the case then how can the present day Church do so since the “Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (i.e. Sacred Scripture and Tradition)?, Para. 86 C.C.C. Moreover, how can the faithful accept what the Church teaches today if it is not consonant with Sacred Scripture, in this instance by a serious omission? “The Magisterium is not superior to the word of God” and cannot thus trump it.

With reference to your point about our Lord not approving of the death penalty in the Gospels, this proves absolutely nothing. It is manifestly untenable to suppose that He would wish to rescind the original divine mandate, for clearly the whole rationale for capital punishment is the divine image in man and an attack on this image is deemed an outrage against God. Thus Jesus knew fully well that no progressive revelation could alter the original mandate of Genesis 9: 6. John Murray has observed that as there has been no abrogation of man’s being in the image of God, the rationale given for the death penalty in Genesis 9 “…is as true today as it was in the days of Noah” (John Murray, Principles of Conduct, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1957, p. 112). Moreover the argument from silence is a double-edged sword, I mean one could assert that by His silence he had no intention to abrogate the divine mandate and was thus continuing to approve of it. Indeed the rest of the N.T. would appear to corroborate this rather than invalidate it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I believe that it is because Man was made in God’s image is a reason for opposing the death penalty. Who is any man then to take away the life of another other than for self defense.

I do know that that the Church has not come right out to say that supporting the death penalty is a sin. Howevr the Church has said that the circumstances justifying the death penalty are virtually non existent today. Why do you believe the Church is wrong there?

It is more than Christ not expressly supporting the death penalty. Christ’s message was of love,mercy and forgiveness. Christ did not hate sinners, He showed them love and forgave their sins.

Best wishes and God bless.

 

[WinterWH]

Let those opposed to capital punishment or even to prison for life without parole take the prisoners or former prisoners into their own homes, so as to serve as an example to us all.

 

[4elise]

Let those opposed to capital punishment or even to prison for life without parole take the prisoners or former prisoners into their own homes, so as to serve as an example to us all.

How would that protect society?
I think you assume that we are ignoring the requirement that society be protected.

 

[severus68]

Let those opposed to capital punishment or even to prison for life without parole take the prisoners or former prisoners into their own homes, so as to serve as an example to us all.

Please don’t be facetious. No one is advocating letting criminals loose on the streets and you know that. We oppose the death penalty not life imprisonment without parole for the hard core.

 

[WinterWH]

There is a movement to not put dangerous prisoners in isolation. Let them circulate. Let them communicate. Wouldn’t hurt a fly.

alternet.org/rights/94257/stopmax:_the_fight_against_supermax_prisons_heats_up/

Yeah, right.

 

[Portrait]

What seems an inescapable conclusion to me and many others, given the latest CCC is that the Church has determined that the retributive justice can be met with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - this too recognizes that man is made in God’s image - even the man who takes the life of another - he too is made in God’s image - when the goal of protecting society can be met with an appropriate retributive sentence - then this has been satisfied.

God Bless,

Dear 4elise,

Good to have you back and many thanks for your recent posting for which I ask you to pardon my slow response to but I am engaged quite heavily elsewhere on the CAF at present, you could say I have my work cut out for me for quite a while!

For reasons known only to itself the Church has chosen to dispense with the retributive component in the revised Catechism. The problem for so many folk is that Sacred Scripture and a consistent Sacred Tradition does not. Now these two “founts” of revelation clearly speak with one voice in stating that the demands of retributive justice cannot be met with life imprisonmet because God has not mandated that sentence for murder (see Gen. 9: 6). On the contrary He has granted the perogative to the State to inflict the death penalty in the case of murder as this heinious crime merits the severest retribution (Romans 13: 4); murder warrants and demands the* jus gladii *. It is my contention that our Church is no longer engaging with the biblical data on this issue as it formerly did and sadly to that extent it has erred.

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now it is this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty. It is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the crime of murder. Moreover it is this sense of sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper ones regard for life the firmer will be ones hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

I am going to bow out now of this debate as I am busy elsewhere on CAF and there are people there that I must also respond to otherwise they might think I am being impolite.
However I have really enjoyed our discussion of this topic and I trust that I have not come across as too confrontational, if I have then I ask your forgiveness. Even though I cannot endorse it I respect your position on this issue.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

I believe that it is because Man was made in God’s image is a reason for opposing the death penalty. Who is any man then to take away the life of another other than for self defense.

I do know that that the Church has not come right out to say that supporting the death penalty is a sin. Howevr the Church has said that the circumstances justifying the death penalty are virtually non existent today. Why do you believe the Church is wrong there?

It is more than Christ not expressly supporting the death penalty. Christ’s message was of love,mercy and forgiveness. Christ did not hate sinners, He showed them love and forgave their sins.

Best wishes and God bless.

Dear Severus68,

Apoligies for the dealay in replying to your posting but I have been, as I’ve just said to 4elise, occupied elsewhere on CAF and probably will be for sometime so this will sadly be my last response on this topic.

There is no indication in the Gospel that our Lord’s love , mercy and forgiveness was an overridding factor when it came to the propriety of the death penalty.

First, as I have pointed out in my previous postings there is no concrete evidence to support the notion that capital punishment for murder has been rescinded under the New Covenant. Actually the very oppisite is the case (see Acts 25: 11; Romans 13: 4). Thus if there was some oral tradition floating about that Jesus had abrogated the death penalty then St. Paul and the other Apostles appear to know nothing of it.

Second, one can scarcely overlook the conscientious regard for, and sensitivity to, the demands of justice in the penitent thief upon his cross when he responded to the other criminal’s fulmination: “`We indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23: 41)… His acknowledgement of just retribution for his crime is consonant with the transformed state of mind which his prayer addressed to our Lord evinced. It is surely an eloquent index to the nobility of thought which sainthood carries with it; not only is it wholly diverse from the ranting and railing of the the impenitent thief, but it has no affinity with the sentimentality that knows little of the sanctity of life or of justice. It is noteworthy that our Lord did not correct any mistaken notions of the impenitent thief, I mean He did not demur when he remarked that “we are receiving the due reward (ie death) of our deeds”. That silence* is* surely deafening.

Third, the death penalty allows the relatives of the victim of murder to have satisfactory closure which they find well nigh impossible if the perpetrator remains alive in prison. This only causes people to become more embittered at the sense of injustice. We all know cases where this is all too plainly evident.

The perpetuity of the death penalty for murder accentuates the gravity of the offence involved which is why it has never been abrogated - you just cannot erradicate the divine image in man.

Again thanks for the debate, I’ve really enjoyed the discussion even though I beg to differ from you on this issue.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

warmest good wishes and prayers

 

[severus68]

Dear Severus68,

Apoligies for the dealay in replying to your posting but I have been, as I’ve just said to 4elise, occupied elsewhere on CAF and probably will be for sometime so this will sadly be my last response on this topic.

There is no indication in the Gospel that our Lord’s love , mercy and forgiveness was an overridding factor when it came to the propriety of the death penalty.

First, as I have pointed out in my previous postings there is no concrete evidence to support the notion that capital punishment for murder has been rescinded under the New Covenant. Actually the very oppisite is the case (see Acts 25: 11; Romans 13: 4). Thus if there was some oral tradition floating about that Jesus had abrogated the death penalty then St. Paul and the other Apostles appear to know nothing of it.

Second, one can scarcely overlook the conscientious regard for, and sensitivity to, the demands of justice in the penitent thief upon his cross when he responded to the other criminal’s fulmination: “`We indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23: 41)… His acknowledgement of just retribution for his crime is consonant with the transformed state of mind which his prayer addressed to our Lord evinced. It is surely an eloquent index to the nobility of thought which sainthood carries with it; not only is it wholly diverse from the ranting and railing of the the impenitent thief, but it has no affinity with the sentimentality that knows little of the sanctity of life or of justice. It is noteworthy that our Lord did not correct any mistaken notions of the impenitent thief, I mean He did not demur when he remarked that “we are receiving the due reward (ie death) of our deeds”. That silence* is* surely deafening.

Third, the death penalty allows the relatives of the victim of murder to have satisfactory closure which they find well nigh impossible if the perpetrator remains alive in prison. This only causes people to become more embittered at the sense of injustice. We all know cases where this is all too plainly evident.

The perpetuity of the death penalty for murder accentuates the gravity of the offence involved which is why it has never been abrogated - you just cannot erradicate the divine image in man.

Again thanks for the debate, I’ve really enjoyed the discussion even though I beg to differ from you on this issue.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

warmest good wishes and prayers

Thank you Portrait for shpwing courtesy even when disagreeing. That is really appreciated in a discussion especially on such a forum.

I will reread Romans but I am afraid it is unlikely I will change my position. I must say that it is not emotion that makes me take this stand. On the contrary, if I was being emotional about it, I may well say that we should put to death the evil hard core. But then, there is also the issue of wrongly finding someone guilty and the other of no one really knowing a person’s soul and heart.

Best wishes and God bless.

 

[4elise]

Dear 4elise,

Good to have you back and many thanks for your recent posting for which I ask you to pardon my slow response to but I am engaged quite heavily elsewhere on the CAF at present, you could say I have my work cut out for me for quite a while!

For reasons known only to itself the Church has chosen to dispense with the retributive component in the revised Catechism. The problem for so many folk is that Sacred Scripture and a consistent Sacred Tradition does not. Now these two “founts” of revelation clearly speak with one voice in stating that the demands of retributive justice cannot be met with life imprisonmet because God has not mandated that sentence for murder (see Gen. 9: 6). On the contrary He has granted the perogative to the State to inflict the death penalty in the case of murder as this heinious crime merits the severest retribution (Romans 13: 4); murder warrants and demands the* jus gladii *. It is my contention that our Church is no longer engaging with the biblical data on this issue as it formerly did and sadly to that extent it has erred.

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now it is this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty. It is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the crime of murder. Moreover it is this sense of sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper ones regard for life the firmer will be ones hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

I am going to bow out now of this debate as I am busy elsewhere on CAF and there are people there that I must also respond to otherwise they might think I am being impolite.
However I have really enjoyed our discussion of this topic and I trust that I have not come across as too confrontational, if I have then I ask your forgiveness. Even though I cannot endorse it I respect your position on this issue.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

Dear Portrait,

I so appreciate the tone of our discussion - thank you for engaging with me on this topic. I believe that while we disagree we are able to do so with respect, and I appreciate the points you have made above. I do not know if you will return to this thread, but I do want to reply to one of the points you’ve made.

It is in your interpretation that moving to abolish capitol punishment degrades the value for life — I find I disagree the most. I believe that in fact moving to remove capitol punishment makes an acknowledgment that the life of EVERY person is to be valued — even the one who has taken the life of another person - leaving that to God - WHEN the safety of the community can be assured.

I believe that the right of the sword does not equal the obligation of the sword.
Warmest good wishes and prayers to you also,

 

[Ender]

I believe that it is because Man was made in God’s image is a reason for opposing the death penalty.

Given that Gen 9:6 says precisely the opposite I’m not sure how you can hold to that opinion. The Church interprets that passage to mean just what it says.

4elise:

I believe that in fact moving to remove capitol punishment makes an acknowledgment that the life of EVERY person is to be valued — even the one who has taken the life of another person - leaving that to God

It seems as if God has already spoken on this issue; if you really want to leave it to him then I think you might endorse doing what he commands.

Portrait:

For reasons known only to itself the Church has chosen to dispense with the retributive component in the revised Catechism. The problem for so many folk is that Sacred Scripture and a consistent Sacred Tradition does not.

Although I agree with most of what you’ve written, I disagree with this conclusion. The Church still recognizes retribution as the primary objective of punishment (see 2266); it is JPII’s opinion that, in our current social environment, executions do more harm that good. That’s not the same thing as saying that the Church no longer believes in retribution.

Ender

 

[severus68]

Given that Gen 9:6 says precisely the opposite I’m not sure how you can hold to that opinion. The Church interprets that passage to mean just what it says.

It seems as if God has already spoken on this issue; if you really want to leave it to him then I think you might endorse doing what he commands.

Although I agree with most of what you’ve written, I disagree with this conclusion. The Church still recognizes retribution as the primary objective of punishment (see 2266); it is JPII’s opinion that, in our current social environment, executions do more harm that good. That’s not the same thing as saying that the Church no longer believes in retribution.

Ender

I cannot speak for God. I only refer to what Christ taught us. Yes, I agree, in the OT retribution is referred to and endorsed. Today, its another world where we can incapacitate murderers by imprisoning them for life , with no parole for the most vile.

Christ taught us to hate the sin and not the sinner and he practised that. Retribution belongs in the past. Vengence is God’s right. Are we to ignore what Christ taught us because of the laws in the OT?

The Cathechism on capital punishment should be read as a whole. It is true that the Church has not called it a sin to support the death penalty. Neither does it say it is a sin to oppose it. It does discourage it today.

 

[Ender]

I cannot speak for God. I only refer to what Christ taught us. Yes, I agree, in the OT retribution is referred to and endorsed.

Your interpretation of what Christ taught does not coincide with the Church’s interpretation. Retribution is not “merely” an OT concept; the Church teaches today that this is the primary objective of punishment.

Christ taught us to hate the sin and not the sinner and he practised that. Retribution belongs in the past. Vengence is God’s right. Are we to ignore what Christ taught us because of the laws in the OT?

You misunderstand retribution as it belongs not to vengeance but to justice. Again, your opinion is contrary to what the Church teaches.

The Cathechism on capital punishment should be read as a whole.

This is what I have maintained as well, but doing so is not helpful to your position because 2267 does not agree with what is contained elsewhere in the same Catechism.

Ender