Process for Revising the Catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter mythbuster1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mythbuster1

Guest
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?
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Does the CCC has jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches? @dochawk
 
The issue concerns confusing the faithful with what is easily mistaken for heresy.
 
What I’m saying is that poor choice of words is quite capable of confusing the faithful, and thereby scandalizing them.
 
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.
 
“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.
 
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.
 
Entwhistler said:
Does the CCC has jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches? @dochawk
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lillypilly said:
I am not aware that the Church has ever taught a King is always right when he commands execution regardless of circumstances.
Click to expand...
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.
Lillypilly said:
I am aware the Church has always taught “thou shall not kill”…though with a few very well ring-fenced exceptions.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I printed out the new wording and taped it to the first blank pages of my copy of the Catechism, thereby making it official.
 
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.
 
Lillypilly said:
40.png
mythbuster1:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, can you also quote from the current Catechism what you believe is being repudiated?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Is this an ex cathedra thing or another way of declaration of something binding on the faithful?
Click to expand...
This is not any change in doctrine. When and whether to use deadly force is a matter of prudence, although the taking of human life is a subject of the highest gravity.
So a pope can change the catechism just like that?
Click to expand...
The Catechism is a book to which the Church holds the copyright. So, yes, the Pope can change words in the Catechism.
 
Lillypilly said:
Circumstances now exist in modern times (life long incarceration is now practical for most states) which make exercise of the power of the sword disproportionate and therefore unjustified in practise.
Click to expand...
Though it may be modern times, that does not mean every country can afford high security. I said previously on another thread that Latin America out ruled the death penalty. Their prisons are extremely overcrowded and violent. There are few first world countries, and MANY third world countries.
 
What is confusing and what is the heresy.

Australia doesn’t have the death penalty. We also like to try and rehab prisoners where possible
 
Last edited:
Joe_73 said:
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,
Click to expand...
The doctrine that the state can execute criminals has not changed. In order to have changed that, Pope Francis would have had to declared the death penalty intrinsically evil or a murderous act or some such. He did not do this. Therefore, the doctrine still stands.

What did he do? He said that in modern society where we have recourse to less than lethal means of protecting the common good, use of the death penalty is now inadmissible. It is a violation of human dignity to choose death over a less than lethal option.

The previous catechism contained this principle. Pope Francis made it more explicit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top