When the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published, I remember Mother Angelica telling her audience to pick up copies of it and to use it to inform themselves of the truths of the Catholic faith. While it was right to suggest people should read it, there was coming from her the implication that we were not being told the truth by our bishops and we need this book to tell us all that we have yet to learn. She gave to many a mistrust of the teaching ability of the bishops (and this was not based upon their failings as pastors to deal with scandals like clergy sex abuse, which, though a grave scandal, has nothing to do with their doctrinal authority). Probably the most famous example of her treatment of bishops was with her criticism of Archbishop Roger Mahony. The problem was she entirely misrepresented what he had wrote and claimed, contrary to what was said in it, that he denied the real presence.[1]
What Mother Angelica was suggesting is that if we got the catechism, we would know enough about our faith that we would be able to judge the theological opinions of fellow Catholics, to judge the work of theologians, and even to know when bishops are in error. But her own example of her debate with Archbishop Mahony shows how easy it is for one following such an attitude to be wrong. It is one thing to know the basics of the faith, it is another to engage sophisticated theological arguments. The problem is, people are being told to criticize such arguments without the needed theological acumen to do so, and so, as happens with such situations, people often naively use a heretical misunderstanding of the faith to judge authentic descriptions of the faith — they are not formal heretics, they are just mistaken. But, as history shows (the Protestant Reformation), it is easy for one to go from this level of argumentation into formal heresy, and it is for this reason such work is to be taken very seriously, with humility, and with a willingness to properly understand the position of the other instead of assuming one’s understanding of it.
What I have seen in many circles is a fundamentalistic understanding of the catechism. It is for this reason many people now go looking in the catechism for their faith, and if something is not written in the catechism in any explicit sense, they think there is a freedom to make up what one wants to believe. Perhaps one of the ways this is shown is in the debates about torture: if the catechism doesn’t call waterboarding torture, then we are free to make our own decisions.
This way of using and understanding the catechism, however, is contrary to what the catechism itself says about its purpose and intent. It was never meant to be an exhaustive declaration of everything one can find in the faith. It was not meant to limit theological conversation and to stop theological development based upon the truths we do possess. Take the following text from the catechism, which has is now being quoted again and again by torture supporters as proof waterboarding is fine:
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law (CCC 2297)
We are expected to be able to read that text, not by looking only at the words used, but to use our reason to develop what is said in it and to see its applicability in real world situations. Those who say they don’t see waterboarding mentioned here remind me of others who say the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. While waterboarding of prisoners to get information out of them is not mentioned as a specific, what is done is mentioned in this general description — the use of physical violence to extract a confession. If one is unable to use reason to guide their interpretation of this text to see how waterboarding follows the general type being offered in the catechism, then it is difficult to debate and argue with them. And if one had any doubt that their argument is irrational, remember, an argument from silence is a fallacy.
But there is something else also going on. The American individualistic spirit which thinks we can do all things ourselves seems to underlie this argument. But the catechism was not meant to be taken in this fashion. It was always meant to be taken and interpreted in the light of the fullness of Christian doctrine, a fullness which transcends the catechism itself (as can be seen from the fact that the catechism consistently references documents outside of itself to show the sources of its teaching). More importantly, this interpretation is most properly to be done by the bishops, as the catechism was primarily written for them in order to help them guide and teach their flock with a sure outline of the faith. They were expected to flesh out its contents and to create particular catechisms to meet the needs the laity. Thus, we read, “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.”[2] This point is reiterated: “This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”[3]
The quotes above should point out that as a good representation of the faith, the catechism is not meant to be an exhaustive. It was not meant to silence the truth if it is not presented in the catechism. Those who try to take the catechism as their sole reference for the faith, and to limit their faith to what is said in it, have failed to have any real faith. And when they take such silence to allow them to engage immorality, they have become legalists looking for loopholes, not people of faith who understand the faith transcends the words which we use to declare it. And if they keep up in such behavior, they put their very soul at risk.
Footnotes
[1] There are legitimate criticisms one could have had with the Archbishop, but there is no need to make false accusations — there are reasons why she had to give an apology. I myself felt more should have been done, because of her accusation of heresy was false, and she told people to give zero obedience to a Prince of the Church (which suggest she had a poor understanding of ecclesiology and authority).
[2] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum
[3] ibid.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In