"this Does Not Mean That The Catechism Is A Sort Of Super-Dogma...

[Innocent]

I saw this snippet from Cardinal Ratzinger's book while going through the archive of Jimmy Akin's blog today:

[quote][color="#4169E1"]In his book [i]Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], Cardinal Ratzinger considers the question of the authority of the Catechism and writes:[/color]

[indent]This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way: analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . .

This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992--exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: "I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith."

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27.][/indent] [color="#4169E1"][NOTE: The paragraph breaks above are mine. While the catechism may not be a super-dogma, Ratzinger said all this (and more) in a single super-paragraph].[/color][/quote][url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html"]SOURCE[/url]


Is this what [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=106155&view=findpost&p=2135250"]some posters in the "Execution by Firing Squad" thread[/url] are referring to when they say that the section the the CCC that quotes from [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] taken by itself does not give the complete picture of the mind of the Church on the subject of Death Penalty?

Edited June 28, 2010 by Innocent

[Laudate_Dominum]

In case some are not aware, the CCC was revised along the way but back in 1992 the blurbs on capital punishment were a bit different.

[i]"The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."[/i]

Also, check this out.

[quote]
[url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.shtml"]The Death Penalty and the Catechism[/url]


The Vatican announced modifications to the Catechism on September 8, 1997. Included were significant changes to the language regarding capital punishment. The new language reflects the Holy Father's teaching in the 1995 Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. While the Church continues to maintain that legitimate state authorities have an obligation to protect society from aggressors, including the use of capital punishment, other options make the carrying out of such a punishment "very rare if practically nonexistent." Below are the sections that were modified to make this argument:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm--without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are rare, if not practically non-existent.' (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

I posted more in that thread.

[quote name='Innocent' date='28 June 2010 - 04:18 AM' timestamp='1277713106' post='2135251']
Is this what [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=106155&view=findpost&p=2135250"]some posters in the "Execution by Firing Squad" thread[/url] are referring to when they say that the section the the CCC that quotes from [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] taken by itself does not give the complete picture of the mind of the Church on the subject of Death Penalty?[/quote]
To this I would answer yes and no. The main point that I take from it is that the authoritative weight of the teachings (in our case on capital punishment) comes not from the catechism itself but from the magisterial precedents (in our case [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i]). In no way does that quote justify dissent from Church teachings. It does clarify that the Catechism is just that, a Catechism. And yes, a catechism quote alone does not establish the level of authority of a statement.