Three Thoughts on the Recent Catechism Change

Alrighty, I've been looking for some professional, expert commentary on the Pope's recent change to the Catechism and not finding much.  So... here goes.



Thought #1:  Does Doctrine Change?

It is often said among Catholics that "the Church's teaching doesn't change."  This isn't really the case.  For instance, the Church has always taught that Jesus is both God and Man.  But in early centuries it wasn't entirely clear how that was meant.

Thus, you can find early Church fathers who held Christological heresies, but who are still revered today.  Why?  Because the particular heresy they held at the time wasn't yet declared a heresy.  It was still within the scope of speculation.

Later on the Church would hammer out some precise language on the issue.  Afterwards it would be wrong to hold the heresy which was once allowed.  Church teaching did change.  It changed by following its own logic and becoming more specific.

So I've seen some Catholics trying to say this revision to the Catechism doesn't constitute a change in teaching.  The implication being that it'd be bad if it was.  But it might not be.  Doctrine develops and travels out to conclusions based upon consistent logic.  That's always been the case.  What doctrine CAN'T do is fold over upon itself and contradict.

So, for instance, suppose Pope Francis woke up one day and said:

“You know what?  Christian marriage can be dissolved in divorce after all.  And oh yeah… Luther was right about justification.”  

Then we’d have a massive problem on our hands because the Pope would be reversing stuff which has been officially and infallibly taught.

So that's the real question which should be asked: "Is this change a contradiction on something formerly (and formally) taught?"



Thought 2:  Extrinsic or Intrinsic?  

The previous version of the Catechism, revised in 1997 by JPII, stated the only possible justification for the death penalty is if it is the only way to protect the public from a person.  However, it noted, such cases would be vanishly rare if not nonexistent.

[Note that this already rules out the death penalty as a means of retributive justice.  So if people are upset and think Pope Francis has ruled out the death penalty as retribution, they should realize that bridge was crossed long ago by Pope John Paul II.]

In the new version, Pope Francis drives the nail home and says there really are no such cases where non-lethal means are insufficient to restrain a prisoner.  Therefore he says the death penalty is “inadmissible”.

This raises a couple questions:

• Is the Pope saying governments do not have the right to put guilty prisoners to death?  
• Is he saying the death penalty is – and always has been – an intrinsic evil?  

If those are the case, this would seem to raise some difficulties.  The Catechism of Trent taught that the State does have the prerogative to execute people for capital offenses (1).  So if Pope Francis is saying governments never had that right and its always been intrinsically evil... that would cross into contradiction category.

However, a more limited reading of the new text is that the death penalty is always –extrinsically- wrong.  That is to say, governments have the right to do it, but there is always a question of when it is appropriate.  Even the most ardent supporter of the death penalty would say you can’t kill someone for stealing bread.  Doing so would be obviously contrary to the value of human life.

So the operative question is: “When is it appropriate?”  

The previous answer was: "Considering modern circumstances…almost never.  Or perhaps never."

The new answer is:  "Considering modern circumstances… never."

The thing I don’t like about this is that we now have a rather absolute teaching based on contingent historical affairs.  Immediately one thinks to ask: "What if a place truly doesn’t have the means to restrain a criminal?  Could we ever return to a circumstance where the death penalty is needed?"

And if you think Pope Francis is going to pick up that question and answer it with sound logic and an eye toward the tradition of the Church… then prepare yourself for disappointment.  That just isn't what Pope Francis does.  It's a personal weakness of his.

I wish it wasn't the case, but whatchagunnado?



Thought 3: The "Infallible" Game

One game which certain Catholics tend to play is: “Is it infallible?”

I’ve seen one reaction from a priest who basically says, “Because this isn’t infallible, the laity who prayerfully discern and still disagree the Pope can safely ignore the teaching.” [<--paraphrase] 

This is nonsense of the highest order.  It’s the same language which progressives use when they say someone can “discern” their way out of the indisoluablilty of marriage.  Or “follow their conscience” into contraception.

Rather, canon 752 of the Code of Canon law states:

“Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

So … no.  Something can be authoritative without being infallible.  The Bible teaches we’re supposed to submit to our pastors and the Pope is our pastor.

This is not dissimilar to when I teach something to my boys – or when I tell them to do something.  I don’t want them shooting back a question of whether I’m invoking my highest authority as head of the family.  If they love me and respect my office as their father, they shouldn’t be looking for every opportunity to dismiss themselves from obedience.

Catholics are supposed to oppose the death penalty as inappropriate in the modern world.  That’s been implicitly the case for a long while.  Now its explicit.

------------------
(1) "Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord."