The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is now out (FINALLY!) and I got a copy of it (FINALLY!). So here are some thoughts after an initial leafing through of it:
1) This is good. Really good. It’ll really help make the teaching of the faith accessible to people in a way that the Catechism doesn’t. Why do I say that? Well . . . .
2) The Catechism is a big, huge, honking book. It’s too much for the average person to absorb (given how intimidated many are by big, huge, honking books). The Compendium is much more absorbable for the ordinary person, and this will help more folks absorb the faith.
3) The Compendium is also much easier to read than the Catechism. It’s written in a Q & A format that is very friendly and digestible, whereas the Catechism is written in prose that is at times very dense and flowery.
4) The Compendium focuses more on the essentials of the faith than the Catechism does. In order to get the material down to size, they had to leave out a bunch of the less important, more debatable stuff, which has the effect of concentrating the reader’s mind more (not perfectly, but more) on the essentials of the faith. By covering the essentials alongside secondary material, the Catechism had a tendency to flatten Catholic doctrine so that people couldn’t always tell what is infallible and essential versus what is merely the common opinion and non-essential.
5) The Compendium also gives straightforward explanations in a way that the Catechism doesn’t. One of the problems with the way that the Catechism was written is that it often tried to get really flowery and inspiring and it also tried to quote so much from Vatican II and other church documents and various Christian writers and this often impeded its ability to state doctrine in a straightforward manner.
Let me illustrate. . . .
Here is what the Catechism says about original sin:
Original
sin – an essential truth of the faith388
With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated.
Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to
understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the
fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning,
which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know
Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came
to "convict the world concerning sin", by revealing him
who is its Redeemer.389
The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of
the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and
that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind
of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation
of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
That’s it. That’s the whole section.
Now–other than saying "It’s an essential truth of the faith, just look at the section head"–can anybody tell me what original sin actually is based on this passage?
Didn’t think so.
Now here’s what the Compendium says:
76. What is original sin?
Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin "contracted" by us not "committed"; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam "not by imitation, but by propagation." This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.
77. What other consequences derive from original sin?
In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, suffering, and to the domination of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.
Now, the Compendium’s treatment of original sin is not that much shorter than the Catechism’s, but it’s worlds better in terms of telling you what original sin actually is. The reason is that the discipline of giving concise answers to questions people would have about a doctrine–rather than simply discoursing on theological themes–forced the authors of the Compendium to write with much greater clarity than the writers of the Catechism did.
That’s a big, BIG plus in my mind.
The Compendium thus stands to serve as a catechetical tool that will be far more practical in normal settings than the Catechism ever was.
Having said how great I think the Compendium is, though, let me add something else about the Catechism: I’m glad it came first.
At the time the Catechism was released, I was disappointed that it wasn’t more like the Compendium, but having seen what happened in the intervening years and having seen the Compendium, I think it’s a good thing that we had over a decade to get familiar with the Catechism before this one came out.
The reason is that the Catechism had an enormous stabilizing effect on the teaching of the Catholic faith. After Vatican II, everything was topsy turvy. Vatican II took such a different tack in articulating the faith compared to previous councils and magisterial statements that it was very hard for many individuals to harmonize the different articulations of the faith. The content of the faith was the same, but the language being used to express it was vastly different. Because of this, it made it easy for dissidents to simply harp on Vatican II and dismiss everything from before the Council, which was not at all the Council’s intent.
Further, the Vatican II documents themselves were nothing like an attempt to articulate the whole of the Catholic faith. They addressed it in a here-and-there manner, not a systematic manner. There is virtually no treatment of the subject of justification in Vatican II, for example. ("Why should there be?" the Council Fathers might say. "That subject was already treated by Trent. Go look up what Trent said.")
The fact that Vatican II used such different language, coupled with the fact that it was not a systematic presentation of the faith, meant that enormous amounts of chaos were created once the "That’s pre-Vatican II, so don’t pay attention to it" meme kicked in.
What we needed (BADLY!) in the years after the Council was a summary of the faith that was (a) authoritative (not just some author’s opinion), (b) comprehensive, (c) systematically organized, and (d) integrating both pre-Conciliar, Conciliar, and post-Conciliar statements of the faith.
In other words, we needed the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We needed a big, huge, honking book that did all that stuff.
(Incidentally, we also have Bernard Law to thank for the Catechism. Whatever his sins as archbishop of Boston, he was the one that first proposed writing the Catechism at the 1985 Synod of Bishops.)
If the Compendium had been released in 1992 instead of the Catechism, it wouldn’t have had as much of a stabilizing effect on the teaching of the faith as the Catechism did.
So I’m glad that the Catechism came out when it did, and now I’m glad that we have the Compendium, too.
What about sections 396-409 of the Catechism? Comparing the excerpt from the Compendium against that, it seems like they cover the same ground but the Compendium does it more concisely, which is its purpose. It would be troubling if the Compendium of the Catechism actually said things that the Catechism didn’t!
Regarding original sin – I was going to say the same thing as David C. The section called “Original Sin – an essential truth of the faith” isn’t meant to give a definition of original sin. It’s meant to explain that original sin is … an essential truth of the faith. And in fact, everything I’ve seen so far in the Compendium (I’ve been reading parts of it in German for a while now, as I got a German copy last summer) is also in the CCC.
And also, I think one has to be very careful about saying things like “what is infallible and essential versus what is merely the common opinion and non-essential.” Remember that just because it isn’t infallible doesn’t necessarily mean it’s only opinion and non-essential! There’s a great deal of magisterial doctrine that’s authoritative – and hence much more than opinion or non-essential – even though it’s non-infallible.
I currently teach a 2 year confirmation class out of the 1994 catechism, and i’ve just received copies of the compendium which i’m also impressed with. I’m considering switching the course this upcoming year to use the compendium which I agree is far easier to digest for many folks – including high school age confirmands.
Also consider that lots of catechists which, while they try, cannot translate the 1994 catechism into common language for a class and still retain the essential meaning of the doctrines. This compendium will go a long way toward solving that problem. It takes the burden off of the catechists as it is giving at least a good example of a way to explain a doctrine in common language while not sacrificing the essense of it [by accident].
That said, I was under the impression the prayers would be at the end of the sections, but instead are located at the end of the book. I could not find any questions for reflection either, which I also thought was planned at least at one point. Either way, great book and I sure am happy it’s finally out!
The Compendium thus stands to serve as a catechetical tool that will be far more practical in normal settings than the Catechism ever was.
Great! Now all I need is a compendium of papal encyclicals, and I’ll be set.
Jimmy, the section you’ve quoted from the Catechism is a subsection of “Where Sin Abounded Grace Abounded All the More.” The sections others have referred to, paragraphs 396-409, is the section whose main heading is actually “Original Sin”.
Jimmy is correct about the helpfulness of the CCC coming first. I became Catholic in 1969 and have worked as a DRE since 1974. Nothing reduced the sense of ‘spirit of VII’ vertigo like the CCC, and things have settled down a lot. The Compendium may well prove a better ‘first time through’ catechetical tool, however. Two things: 1. I was surprised Jimmy didn’t comment on the art. And, 2. we need a better, quick identifier for the Compendium other than ‘the Compendium.’ The Catechism is widely abbreviated as CCC, so perhaps…C4 (I mean 4-superscript, but perhaps C4 will do).
C4 is also shorthand for a type of plastic explosive. Perhaps a cool Compendium slogan could be “Use the C4 and explode that dissident’s arguments!”
While we’re on the topic of the CCC, I do have a real question. Years and years ago I bought a copy of the CCC First Edition. I have since noticed that there is a Second Edition of the Catechism out. My question is, what’s the difference? Does my First Edition have errors in it that were corrected in the Second Edition?
Jon:
The CCC was originally composed in French – the early-’90s translations were based on that.
In ’97, a Latin editio typica was published. In the preparation of that Latin edition, there were a number of “corrections” in various places. For instance, there are a bunch in Part Three (on morality). For instance, in the section on the Fifth Commandment, there was a rewording of the treatment of capital punishment; in the section on the Sixth, of the treatments of contraception and homosexuality; in the section on the Eighth, of the definition of lying.
The English translation labeled second or revised edition is made from that Latin edition, and thus reflects the corrections therein.
I haven’t seen the Compendium yet, but I hope that the indexing is better. The Catechism’s index is next to useless.
I just received the Compendium yesterday. I can’t wait to delve into it. It’s going to be a great resource for me when I start teaching CCD again.
The example you gave was enough for me to order a copy! Thanks!
“The Catechism’s index is next to useless”
You said it!!! I was just thinking that this morning. Very frustrating!
I’m converting to Catholicism from the Presbyterian Church (USA), and I’m looking forward to reading the Compendium. (My local bookstore didn’t have it – I’m going to have to order it) I’m working my way through the Catechism right now, and compared to what I’m used to, I find the CCC concise, clear, and brilliant. I can’t wait to read the Compendium.
When will the Compendium be available in bookstores?
Congratulations, K-man! Welcome home.
Kevin Miller, Thanks for the info!
K-man, I share your opinion of the CCC. Coincidentally, I am also currently a member of a PCUSA church that has been reading up on the Catholic faith for years now and have also been considering “swimming the Tiber”, as they say. After I post this I will visit your website.
Dear Jimmy,
what about question 18? does it not come down (contra Leo XIII and 1998 “Illustrative Note” by the CDF) implicitly in favor of limited inerrancy of Scripture?
Maybe I’m a simple man, but I like the indexing in the CCC.
Jon, go to a bookstore, pick up a copy of the second edition (the paper back version is only ~$10 btw) and look in the back. The list of corrections are there. You can see for yourself whether its worth buying (though most of the corrections don’t seem to be that major, in my opinion.)
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, Jimmy! It rocked!
I don’t know about “major,” but I do think some of the corrections are fairly significant.
Indexing in the first edition of the CCC was quite poor. In the second edition, much, much improved, and with the cross index citations beside each paragraph, usually enough. But for thoroughness, use the word-by-word seach index in English on the Vatican website.
Thanks Tim J. I’m having the time of my life!
Great Jon,
I look forward to hearing from you!
Actually, I think this treatment of Original Sin is best:
“113. What is sin?
Sin is an offence against God, by any thought, word, deed, or omission against the law of God.
114. How many kinds of sin are there?
There are two kinds of sin, original sin and actual sin.
115. What is original sin?
Original sin is that guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, who was the origin and head of all mankind.
116. What was the sin committed by Adam?
The sin committed by Adam was the sin of disobedience when he ate the forbidden fruit.
117. Has all mankind contracted the guilt and stain of original sin?
All mankind has contracted the guilt and stain of original sin, except the Blessed Virgin and her Divine Son, through whose foreseen merits she was conceived without the least guilt or stain of original sin.”
I’m not sure whether it is longer than the other two, my guess is it is. However, it manages to also explain why it was contracted and that neither Our Lady nor Our Lord contracted it (subtly reinforcing the teaching that Jesus was both truly human and truly God).
The source? The old Penny Catechism (called the Baltimore Catechism, IRRC)
Stephen
I wouldn’t say that that treatment is “best.” First, no, it certainly isn’t longer than the CCC’s treatment – when you read the CCC’s actual treatment – not just the intro on how o.s. is an essential truth of the Faith. Second, it leaves out some pretty important things that are in the CCC – for instance, the fact that o.s. is not “sin” in a univocal sense, but in an analogous one, etc.
What of Question 18? Am I just overreacting? Since no one appears to be responding, perhaps I am! lol
Jeremy:
I don’t see where #18 says anything different from what the CCC – itself drawing from Dei Verbum – says.
Dear Kevin (and everyone):
The difference with respect to question 18 of the Compendium as compared to both Dei Verbum and the Catechism itself is that the latter two at worst ambiguous and can therefore be interpreted in an orthodox fashion (e.g., Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus – which was only recently reaffirmed by the CDF in the 1998 document “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei*. Leo XIII, in the passage footnoted in the CDF document affirms the total absence of error (when properly interpreted) in the Sacred Scriptures. Question 18, on the other hand, seems (to me, at least) to come squarely down on the *limited inerrancy* interpretation of Dei Verbum and, hence, the Catechism regarding Scripture. The issue in the original Vatican II document centered on how exactly to interpret the “for the sake of our salvation” clause (I paraphrase here). The orthodox interpretation would have interpret said passage as a description of what the *purpose* (the end, the telos) of Scripture is — not (according to the unorthodox interpretation) as a clause restricting the sense in which the Scriptures are inerrant. Question 18 at least appears to interpret Dei Verbum and the Catechism in the latter sense.
(Please note that I’m not a “radtrad” or even necessarily a traditionalist at all [I’m too fond of Maritain and Congar] to be given membership, but I do find Question 18 perplexing — the fly in the proverbial ointment, as it were.)
Nevertheless, *thank you*, Kevin, for actually responding! 🙂 I was beginning to think that my emails and various Internet transactions were somehow being deleted by some nefarious black helicopter 😉 No one had responded as yet excepting the good Father Brian Harrison – indeed, he responded, but with the same bewilderment and concern as I am expressing!
In Him,
Jeremy
Please accept my apologies for all the grammatical errors to be found in the immediately preceding post. It speaks poorly of my status as a grad student at Notre Dame!
I am normally far more cautious as regards my proofreading. In this case, I was simply anxious to get the proverbial “word out”.
In Him,
Jeremy Lancey
Jeremy:
What’s the wording in the English translation of the Compendium? I only have the German.
By the way, for what it’s worth – the 1998 CDF doc that I have footnotes (n. 30) both – I gather – Leo XIII (“DS 3293”) and also DV.
Also by the way – I must say that based on past experience, I think Fr. Harrison is much too easily bewildered/concerned.
Dear Kevin:
That’s precisely my point: I am (or at least was, prior to someone else’s illuminating response) bewildered by the dissonance between the 1998 CDF document and the Compendium. Indeed, the 1998 CDF *does* cite (in a footnote, by way of Denzinger), Leo XIII’s PD. It was the *apparent* conflict that was disturbing me. (What is more, I was in no doubt that an adequate response would be forthcoming — and it was.)
As for the relevant portion of the English translation of Question 18, it is as follows:
“For this reason [Scripture] is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths that are necessary for our salvation.” The question that might have been asked is: Are we to assume, then, that error may creep in with respect to those things taught in Scripture that are not necessary for our salvation?
This appeared to me (but no longer) to be in conflict with the relevant portion of DS 3293 (Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus), cited by the CDF in 1998, which reads:
“It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…”
As for Father Harrison, his work on religious liberty alone is sufficient to warrant our tremendous gratitude and respect. Please, don’t just read his articles in assessing his temperament/abilities. I would recommend reading his book /Religious Liberty and Contraception/. Furthermore, as I understand the matter, he single-handedly helped a good deal of former “SSPX’ers” enter into full communion via the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. Whatever his (supposed) faults, I think he at least deserves a certain “reverentia obseqium” 🙂
In Him through Love,
Jeremy J Lancey
Grad Student (Philosophy)
University of Notre Dame, USA
Jeremy:
Okay – yes – I agree, regarding the English wording, that there doesn’t need to be any conflict there – that could be a statement of the purpose of all that is taught by Scripture (rightly interpreted).
It is also indeed very similar to the wording of the CCC (no. 107) itself – quoting DV: “… we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
I don’t think there’s any necessarily significant difference between “those truths that are necessary for our salvation” (CCCC) and “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided” (CCC).
Regarding Fr. Harrison – I don’t doubt that his has been a spiritually fruitful ministry for many – and I give thanks regarding the former SSPXers. This said – Religious Liberty and Contraception was the first thing of his that I ever read – at least a decade ago now. I think there are very significant problems with his argument – I think that his claims about the infallibility of many of the earlier teachings are utterly untenable – as is his exegesis of DV (with its minimalization of the scope of the liberty that it teaches).
Hi, Kevin:
Thanks for taking the time to write a response to my own missives on the Catholic Answers forum. I, too, read Father Harrison’s book RL & C about a decade ago and, quite frankly, as an impressionable lad in his teens (if I recall aright) I may have been overawed by a defense of the compatibility of DH with the rest of the Church’s teaching — the likes of which I had ever come across (Likoudis and Whitehead’s chapter of a “response” notwithstanding). I still hope, at least, that the substance of his argument (and the subsequent response by Father Harrison to Michael Davies’s own book) remains intact. If you are interested in this topic, or in any case do not mind providing me with some “pointers” as to where Harrison appears to go afoul of the truth, I’d be very much appreciative! 🙂 My private email address is being sent to you by way of your own. At any rate, any illumination you might provide would be wonderful.
In Him through Love,
Jeremy J Lancey
Grad Student (Philosophy)
University of Notre Dame, USA
P.S. As of this writing, the English translation of the Compendium on the Vatican’s own website appears, mysteriously, to have disappeared. This is ironic since I was initially hoping that the problem with Question 18 was simply one of translation!
Jeremy:
Got your email; thanks. As I said in my reply, we will continue the conversation about RL&C.
Don’t know what the deal is with the online CCCC translation – I hadn’t even realized that there was one. I don’t think that what you quoted above is a misleading translation, though, since the German has “jene Wahrheiten, die zu unserem Heil notwendig sind.”
Hi, Kevin:
I had thought the relevant Italian (the language in which the Compendium was promulgated) might have been capable of being translated into English as ‘truth’ (connoting “truth” in the abstract) rather than ‘truths’ (which, of course, connotes propositions). At any rate, I was assured by any shadow of a doubt that it is to be rendered in the English in the grammatical plural, just as it takes the plural form in the Italian. (The reason I had thought otherwise, initially, was that there is a passage in the /Summa Contra Gentiles/ Book I, Chapter 7 [the first line] that in the Italian uses the same plural construction as the Compendium (on a different topic, but still dealing with truth) that in the original Latin text and its English translation counterparts is curiously rendered in the singular.) C’est la vie!
Regarding the seeming duplication: I had decided to send out virtually identical missives — one in email form including my own email address and one for all to see, hence the reason for the apparent re-statement. I did get your email and thank you!
In Him,
Jeremy Lancey
Cardinal Law is not the first to propose a new catechism.Silvio Cardinal Oddi proposed it and was workingh on it before Law mentioned it at the synod.But the very firts person to propose it according to Avery Cardinal Dulles,was during Vatican II-it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!
Fr. Harrison’s exposition of Dei Verbum has been posted online for years, and no one has seemed able to point me to an online refutation of it. Based on the criticism here, I would be appreciative of anyone who could point to one explaining where he goes wrong. Not to mention material also explaining how we are now able to dismiss the earlier decrees of the PBC but expected to give attention to new ones. Harrison’s take, incidentally, also seems to be champoioned by Scott Hahn in “Letter & Spirit.”
Dear Joe:
Thanks for your comments in favor of Father Harrison. In my fallibile, corrigible opinion, he has been just as superb in his exegesis of Dignitatis Humanae as he has been with regard to Dei Verbum. Both are excellent. As Father Harrison has shown so well, ours is a truly consistent, living Tradition. Let’s never leave Peter b/c of Judas 🙂
I’d encougage anyone who has yet to do so to visit http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html and search for any articles by Father Harrison.
In Him,
Jeremy Lancey
I just thought I’d share on here what I likewise shared on catholic.com; I believe I’ve come to understand the (rather basic, uncomplicated) sense in which one should take Question 18 of the Compendium — which is basically the same sense in which one should take the CCC, Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, etc. Let us thank the Lord for sending such tremendous workers into the vineyard that was our “40 year wandering” as Father William Most and Father Brian Harrison:
I think Vatican II did a real service to our Church in reminding us of the *purpose* for God’s revealing Himself to each one of us (very directly and intimately) by way of the Scriptures in His Church. While we know that whatever is affirmed by the human author is affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we don’t always know why the Holy Spirit chose to inspire the individual human author to affirm what he did. What we can know with certainty is that whatever said affirmation is, it is, at least ultimately, for the sake of our salvation. Even the most mundane historical truth asserted by the human author (and thus asserted by God) in Scripture is, quite literally, “God-breathed.” Praise God for the Written Word and praise Him for this great time of both confusion and growth in the Church!
For what my advice is worth (not much), I’d recommend to everyone (for his or her devotional time) – in addition to a prayerful reading of the Scriptures – a devout reading of both Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII (found on the Vatican’s website) and Dei Verbum of Vatican II (likewise found on the Vatican’s website). All of the Scriptural documents promulgated by the Magisterium over the past couple hundred years have been wonderful, but these two – in my opinion – are pure gold, spiritually speaking.
As one person has said: the Compendium (as well as the CCC itself and, ultimately, Dei Verbum) remind us of the essential fact that the Scriptures, properly interpreted, are completely inerrant – but not just for no reason; they inerrantly contain what they inerrantly contain so that they might express and assert those wondrous truths which (in what it sometimes takes a highly attuned spiritual eye to apprehend) are necessary for our salvation. (Cf. question 18 of the new Compendium of the CCC).
Praise the Lord Jesus that even the most seemingly unimportant historical event recorded in 2nd Chronicles (if affirmed by the human author and, therefore, the Holy Spirit as having certainly taken place) can have such value as is ascribed “every Scripture” (in the Greek implying “every part, every verse” of Scriptures) in 2nd Timothy 3:6-7!
In Him,
Jeremy Lancey
Notre Dame,Seat of Wisdom, Pray for us
err…make that verses 16 & 17 of 2nd Timothy — not 6 & 7! I wasn’t attempting to make any point about making one’s way into houses or capturing weak women!
Anybody read the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
I haven’t read it yet, but I’d like to dig into the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ironically, the condensed version has a much longer title. Jimmy Akin has read the Compendium, and likes it. I happen…
Isn’t publication in the AAS required for a document of the Holy See to carry (technically speaking) official magisterial weight ? I just received word from the CDF that, at least for now, the Compendium has yet to be published in the AAS.
Confusedly yours,
Jeremy
Never mind (re: my previous question)! — I just received word from a theologian that I thoroughly trust that publication in the AAS is not necessary.
Miguel
Gregory Ismael Keyshawn
The compendium is great and I like it but so far I have found one glaring error that could and will be seized upon to justify liberation theology and similar socialist thought. Art. 482 Earthly peace requires the equal distribution and safeguarding of the goods of persons, …… It contradicts art 413 and 414 which give a better understanding.
Art. 482 does not necessarily contradict either 413 or 414, especially when one considers this excerpt from art. 413: “…sinful social and economic inequalities…are contrary…to peace.” And the fact that liberation theologians or socialists might misuse a text does obviously not make something a glaring error.
Still, you highlight an interesting point. Art. 482 cites back to articles 2304 and 2307-08 of the CCC. Every part of art. 482 can be found in those three articles — except, it seems, the part about “equal distribution.”
And CCC 1938 implies that “sinful” inequalities refers to, or at least bears some relation to, “excessive economic and social disparity…”
I could find no other reference in the CCC indicating that earthly peace (which is not the same as the peace of Christ) requires an equal distribution of goods. Given that the CCC describes some inequalities as part of God’s plan — in contrast to other, sinful, inequalities — it would seem that we must expect that there will always be such inequalities. And Christ certainly seems to say the same thing after his feet are anointed with expensive perfumes: “The poor you will always have with you.” And if earthly peace is impossible with an unequal distribution of goods, art. 482 could be read as saying that we can never expect earthly peace. But if that’s what they mean, why not say it? And why not say it in the CCC?
Incidentally, I also took a brief look through the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (another fabulous work), and I could not find anything calling for an equal distribution of goods. A more just distribution, yes, but never equal.
Is there any other text from the Magisterium calling for an equal distribution of goods? How are we to read that?
Our faith is transmitted by words. In a question and answer format it is not expected that lay people are going to seek cross references and Church council documents.
You are correct when you deduced that the statement “Earthly peace requires the equal distribution and safeguarding of the goods of persons..” ultimately means that we will never have earthly peace, but the context of the statement is obviously not implying that. The context is implying, erroneously, that radical marxist-like wealth redistribution is sanctioned by the Church because it is required for earthy peace.
(Have you read the book Catechisms and Controveries by Mnsgr Wrenn? It reminds me of some of the accounts out of that book of translators with agendas.) This document carries so much weight that it is hard for me to believe that the translators and proofreaders would let that happen. Forgive me for sounding judgmental but I find it hard to believe that these types of errors are unintentional. It was not exactly produced off the cuff. Someone with theology degrees wrote that down, and some one with theology degrees proof read it. Can we look at the original document in the official latin text and see how it reads?
Is there anyone to contact to correct the wording of that article? Remember the abomination that occured in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially in the area of homosexuality. That was edited and corrected. Maybe this can be too.
bang boat –
black cocks white sluts –
boob exam scam –
bubble butts galore –
college wild parties –
couples seduce teens –
first time swallows –
gangbang squad –
gay blind date sex –
gay college sex parties –
her first anal sex –
her first big cock –
her first dp –
her first lesbian sex –
his first facial –
his first gay sex –
his first huge cock –
housewife bangers –
huge boobs galore –