Fr. John Hardon’s Commentary on a Draft of the CCC (Part 2)

Continuing from the first part, published at Rorate Caeli yesterday (here).

Father John A. Hardon’s 1990 Comments on the “Revised Draft” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part II)

Robert Hickson

Important study: “On Doctrinal and Moral Disorders Abiding in the Church” — Fr. John Hardon’s 1990 critique of the “revised draft” of the Catechism (Part 1)

Rorate has received from Drs. Maike and Robert Hickson the following important study, which introduces and then provides the critique written by Fr. John Hardon, S.J. (1914–2000) in 1990 when he was given the opportunity to review a “revised draft” of what would become the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The text offered here, in two parts, was first published in Christian Order in 2016 and is now being made available on the internet for the benefit of a wider readership. Ever since Pope Francis decided to use the Catechism as a Trojan Horse for his erroneous position on the death penalty, we have become aware once more of the possibility of “weaponized catechisms,” and so, Fr. Hardon’s study acquires new relevance. It should be noted that many of his just criticisms seem to have made no difference in the framing of the final text.—PAK

Father John A. Hardon’s 1990 Commentaries on the “Revised Draft” of the Catholic Catechism

(Part I)

Who are the real “Christian Ideologues”?

From Il Giudizio Cattolico:

by Corrado Gnerre

                               

A typical error of the post-Conciliar Church is that of not wanting to pay attention to the reality of things.  The life of Grace diminishes…it does not matter.  The sense of sin diminishes…it does not matter.  The family breaks apart….it does not matter. Civil marriage increases and in some regions of Italy are more numerous than religious marriages…it does not matter.  Young people have completely lost the obligation and the value of pre-matrimonial chastity…it does not matter.  The laws of the State reflect more and more the dominant ethical relativism…it does not matter.  All is well, and it is useless to be concerned.

This typical error manifests itself in two attitudes. The first attitude, that of a minority, is to remain silent in the face of this ruinous situation, and in a certain sense gives a positive value to these developments, and hopes that the trend will continue along these lines.  Those who think in this way—and let us speak frankly—are those Catholics who do not have a clean conscience, who have a lot of disorder in their private lives.  In this way they hope to silence their consciences, while convincing themselves that what all this shows is that Catholic moral teaching cannot be completely respected and that the moral teaching of the Church must be radically changed.

The majority attitude, on the other hand, that manifests this error is more complex. It is the attitude of those who are aware that things are not going well, but at the same time force themselves to show that what is not going well must have to do with a sort of physiological crisis of the Church.  It is inevitable that this should happen: to free herself from “historical encrustations” of contamination by issues of power and certain conservative attitudes, the Church must live through a crisis, a crisis that will bring her to a greater “spiritualization” and to being more faithful to her commission.  The arguments they invoke are complex, but one understands well that underlying these arguments there lies another question that is psychological.

If for the first attitude the question is “baser”, in a certain sense a “matter of the stomach”,  for the second attitude it is more a question “of the head”.  And for this attitude it is ideology that prevents understanding.  Ideology, one knows, is a hypertrophic condition of the intellect, that because it is an enlarging of the intellect in size without an increase in perception and understanding, results in a blind spot in the intellectual mind itself.  When something grows too much it ends up by destroying itself.  Cancer is nothing but a crazed growth of cells. A man who grows too tall would not be able to live well, he could not easily walk through a door,  he could not easily get into his car, he would have trouble finding clothes or shoes that fit.  Ideology is the intellect that is disproportionate and hypertrophied, that wills to not pay attention to observation--- to see how things are as they are--- so that it can put its faith in its own theoretical and intellectual constructions.

We hear often the present Pontiff speak against “ideological” Christians, and many read this as referring to Christians of a traditional mind-set, who are accustomed only to denounce the state of the Faith and of the Church in terms that are never positive.  Now this definition is not very useful, because there is  so much “ideological Catholicism” in our day.  But let us ask ourselves:  in whom is this attitude found?  To whom should this verbal tag be attached?  To those who read things as they are or to those who indulge in the illusion that things are going well when they are not going well at all?

Many know the famous phrase of a well-known Soviet theoretician:  “If the facts do not agree with us, all the worse for the facts”.  This maxim fits the attitude of all too many Catholics today.  Faced with the obvious crisis in the life of Grace, faced with the corresponding crisis in the Church, they insist that there is no need to change pastoral directives, the direction in which things have been moving, the specific initiatives of the last ten years. They would say: the problem is not there, the problem cannot be there.  Still, through the wisdom of the Gospels, Christians should be absolutely convinced that a tree is known by its fruit.

Monsignor Giacomo Biffi,  Bishop-emeritus of Bologna, using his inimitable style, in his Fifth Gospel wrote in relation to this widespread attitude:  “The Reign of Heaven is similar to a pastor who has one hundred sheep and having lost ninety-nine of them, scolds that last sheep for his lack of initiative, sends him away, closes the sheep-fold, and goes to the local osteria to discuss pastoral ministry.”  It gives one pause when one remembers that Biffi wrote these words as long ago as 1969:  a true prophecy.

Last Advent the Cardinal of Vienna, Monsignor Schonborn, preached in the diocese of Milan, and, speaking of the Church of today, he said:  “(…)let us get rid of nostalgia for the ‘50s, those of my childhood, in my village, when the church was filled with people three times every Sunday.  Everyone went to church.  Let us leave behind nostalgia for the vitality of our places of prayer in the ‘50s and ‘60s.”  This is an example of the real “Christian ideology”.  It is one thing to say that, recognizing the difference between the past and the present, the Catholic should not lose heart. It is another thing to say that the longing for another time should be abandoned.  When one loses something beautiful, this longing is more than appropriate, and it is the only response that is human and reasonable.  Of course, one should not get depressed.  On the contrary, it is necessary to do what has to be done, to roll up one’s sleeves, and to act, convinced that the fortunes of history are not in our hands but in the hands of God and of his most holy Mother. But an undertaking, a commitment like this, can be motivated only by an intelligent assessment of the situation: things are not going well, so it is necessary to act to change them.  To speak of “letting go of nostalgia” is the most an ideologue can say in this type of situation…at least if he does not want to “apostasize”, something we do not consider as possible, able to imagine or be thought of in a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.

There is a fear of seeing reality as it is, but that is not a truly Christian way of looking at things, because the Christian is first of all a person who looks, who sees, who observes, and he uses this as a basis, with the virtue of prudence, to make his own judgments and to determine how to live his own life.

Translated by Father Richard G. Cipolla
Second photo from Huffington Post

Full Statement of the Cardinal of ViennaDiocesan Leadership Confirms Election Results in Stützenhofen

[For background, see previous post: The crisis of the Church is a crisis of Bishops - The Vienna Chronicles: another priest thrown under the bus. Thanks to our reader-translator, who added his own relevant note in the end.]

Press statement of Archbishop Christoph Cardinal Schönborn on the parish council elections in Stützenhofen.

I thank the many candidates for the parish council elections. By their candidacy they showed their concern for the Church and the Faith. Thus they witness to the vitality of the Church. In their diversity they reflect the diversity of the life and faith journeys of today. Thus there are many parish councilors whose lifestyle  does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church. In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts. She does not thereby call the validity of her ideals into question.

In the small community of Stützenhofen, which I hold in great esteem, there is lively participation in Church life even in the younger generation. A sign of this is the high turnout the parish council elections. The formal errors which have come to light in that election do not call the results of the election itself (in which the youngest candidate, Florian Stangl, received the most votes) into question.

I was able to have a personal conversation with Herr Stangl, and was deeply impressed by his faithful disposition, his humility, and the way in which he lives his commitment to service. I can therefore understand why the inhabitants of Stützenhofen voted so decidedly for his participation in the parish council.

Today in the bishop’s council [Bischofsrat] we discussed the complex Stützenhofen case, and unanimously decided on the following decisions:

1. The diocesan leadership does not challenge the validity of the election and its results.

2. The bishop’s council mandates a revision of the rules for parish council elections in order to clarify the pre-requisites for candidacy in the context of continuing deliberation about the nature and purpose of parish councils.

Translator's note: candidates for parish councils in the Archdiocese of Vienna can be nominated by any Catholic before the election. The nominations are supposed to enclose a signed statement by the candidates in which they affirm that they fulfill the conditions for the office (including crucially the condition that they adhere to the faith and discipline of the Church - “sich zur Glaubenslehre und Ordnung der Kirche bekennen”). At the election voters mark as many names on the candidate list as there are places to be taken in the council; the candidates with the most votes are elected. In Stützenhofen the candidates neglected to sign statements affirming that they fulfilled the conditions for election. Herr Stangl, the candidate with the most votes, lives in a civil-partnership with his homosexual lover. An initial statement of the Archdiocese said that “in principle” persons who live in such unions are not allowed to serve on parish councils, but that the Archdiocese was examining the particularities of the case in question. In an interview Herr Stangl said “I feel committed to the teachings of the Church. But the demand to live chastely seems kind of unrealistic to me (Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität). How many people really live chastely?”

As we had said in 2009: "The Cardinal of Vienna: a man who is tough when it counts."

More problems with YouCat?

Fr. Finigan explains:

OK so the Italian translation of YouCat 420 is to be corrected to make it clear that the Church does not teach that a Catholic couple can and should use contraception. That is a relief, I suppose. Ignatius Press, for whom I have the highest respect, have posted a loyal and serious defence of YouCat in this area.

Unfortunately, the quotation given from YouCat 421 gives further cause for concern. It reads:

421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?

The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]

Both the question and the answer fly in the face of everything that loyal Catholics have done to promote the teaching of Humanae Vitae.

The Church does not say that contraception and natural family planning are "not equally good." It teaches that contraception is a sin (not a lesser good), while NFP may be a morally acceptable means of limiting the size of a family if there are serious reasons for doing so.

The Church does not "recommend" NFP as though artificial contraception were a less perfect option. Nor, in fact does it consider NFP and contraception to be the same kind of moral action. This is one of the basic elements of apologetics in support of the moral teaching of the Church: contraception is definitively closed to the gift of new life, while NFP recognises that new life may be less likely at certain times.

The composers of YouCat have made a classic mistake in their attempt to appeal to young people. A question and answer such as 421 above, looks like an attempt to put things diplomatically: to water down the teaching of the Church in case it is too difficult.

In fact, the young people who are still willing to listen to the Church want clear, unambiguous answers. On sexual ethics, they may fail to live the natural law as clarified by the Catholic Church but they will be willing to repent and come back to Christ in humility. As a priest working in perhaps the most secular corner of the planet, I am only too well aware of the import of the modern translation of Psalm 118 "How shall the young remain sinless?" The answer is "by obeying your law", not by waffling around in timid appeasement. (As I highlighted the other day, Waffle should only be served with syrup.) The last thing young people need is for priests to fudge what are crucial questions for their everyday lives.

YouCat has already earned the nickname LolCat. If the stuff on contraception is so muddled, what will it be like in other areas of theology? I await the published edition (released today) with some trepidation.

"Youcat"? They should rename it Lolcat:cute and unfunny

After the "contraceptive" debacle, an even greater mess in "Youcat" - and what else could be expected from the Cardinal of Vienna? He is just so bad in defending the faith that he actually makes us side with Totò Rino Fisichella...

Catholic Culture reported earlier today:

The Italian edition contained another translation error in its treatment of end-of-life treatment. While the German original said that a family may accept the inevitability of death of a loved one, the Italian translation used a term meaning "passive euthanasia," thus appearing to provide justification for the removal of food and water from a dying patient--a practice that the Church condemns.

As Sandro Magister notices, it is not merely another Italian translation problem:

When will heads start rolling?

From LSN:

Italian version of official World Youth Day Catechism errs on contraception: report

BY JOHN-HENRY WESTEN

VATICAN, April 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Italian-language version of a new Catechism designed for youth and to be distributed at this year’s World Youth Day in August incorrectly states the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, reports the Catholic News Agency (CNA). The English version of YOUCAT– short for “Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church” - does not contain the error.

CNA and EWTN News reported this morning that question 420 in the Italian, Q&A-format YOUCAT, slated for release on April 13, states:

“Q. Puo una coppia christiana fare ricorso ai metodi anticoncezionali?” (Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?)

“A. Si, una coppia cristiana puo e deve essere responsabile nella sua facolta di poter donare la vita.” (Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life).

In the English version, however, question 420 reads:

Q. May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?

A. Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. [2368–2369, 2399]