I am not a big fan of the USCCB Catechism. There are subtleties in there that, in my opinion, slightly distort the social doctrine of the Church.
Two examples, the idea of subsidiarity is only discussed in one place in the text. On page 326, it states
“The principle of subsidiarity teaches that governments should help and support individuals and groups for who they are responsible without controlling their freedom and initiative (cf. CCC, no. 1883).”
CCC 1883 states:1883 *Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”*
7
You will need to look very carefully to see the difference. You will note that CCC 1883 talks about “in case of need” – not mentioned in the USCCB Catechism. Also, note that the CCC talks about “a community of a higher order…” while the USCCB Catechism talks about “governments”. We know that communities of higher order can talk about the immediate family, the extended family, the neighborhood, the town, the parish, the diocese, and so on…“communities of higher order” are not limited to governments. Yet, if you teach catechism based solely upon the USCCB document, you would not recognize that.
Next, on page 421ff, there is a presentation talking about the
Reflections of the Catholic Bishops of the United States on the Church’s Social Teaching: Major Themes.
This portion is a condensation of the USCCB “Pastoral Letter”
Economic Justice for All. Economic Justice for All was written by Robert Weakland in 1986. To my knowledge, it did not receive unanimous consent by the US bishops nor did it receive a Recognito from the Holy See (ref CIC Can 455 and Motu Proprio
Apostolos Suos). In other words, it is not Magisterial.
(Mind you, the USCCB Catechism did not cite this 1986 document…but it was there, anyway).
*
This USCCB Document (*Economic Justice) is problematic, to put it mildly. problematic.
A couple of minor points:
- There is no mention of subsidiarity as a major theme of Catholic Social Teaching (yet, per the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, it is a key principle).
- The principle of Participation is subsumed within the “Call to Family, Community, and Participation” Participation is a key implication of subsidiarity. As listed in the Compendium, it is a key principle and highlights each Christian’s responsibility for each other…
- The “Preferential Option for the Poor” is listed as in the USCCB *Catechism *as the “Option for the Poor and Vulnerable.” They aren’t the same thing.
– In the
Compendium, the “Preferential Option for the Poor” is subsumed, as it should be, under the “Universal Destination of Goods.” It is discussed immediately after the section affirming the legitimacy of private property (while acknowledging that all private property has a social function).
– On the other hand, in *Economic Justice *(as reported in the
USCCB Catechism), it stands alone without explaining the relationship of this within its relationship to the Universal Destination of Goods or to the legitimacy of private property.
And so on.
Don’t get me wrong. These are not so much glaring errors…but the subtlety of them can steer a person down a slightly different vector than studying the actual documents.
If you want a easy to digest document, I would suggest the
Compendium of the Catechism. It is written in simple question and answer format and, I believe, could be utilized in much the same fashion as the old Baltimore Catechism series (which, by the way, in my mind, are still very usable).
