Catechism contradictions

[Dave]

I've heard some people say that there are contradictions between certain things the Catechism of the Catholic Church says and those that previous catechisms say. A small example is that the current catechism says that it's not lying to withhold the truth from somebody who has no right to the truth (telling the Nazis you're not hiding any Jews when you really are doing so comes to mind). But previous catechisms don't make this distinction. I've heard other alleged contradictions as well, but this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Anyway, how does one answer someone who claims there are contradictions between catechisms and wants to know which one should be believed? Thanks in advance.

Oh, just for the record, the people whom I've heard make such statements are so-called Catholic traditionalists who seem to think the current catechism is inferior to previous ones.

[philothea]

Ecclesia semper reformanda.

I would think that the Church is always (with perhaps occasional missteps -- though never in serious matters) improving its understanding of Truth. My understanding is that newer documents would be more definitive.

Of course, many with Church Faithful/Church Militant banners say I'm wrong. I guess my trying to understand and obey the Magesterium, the Pope, and the latest catechism was bad.

I feel like crying, [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]"help, help, I'm being scandalized"[/url] but I'm just an unknown newbie. Maybe this isn't the place for me.

Sigh.

[CanCath]

I think in this case Language is important. I'm sure there are differences between the different Catechisms. Contradictions... I highly doubt it. Just because there are things that were Added, does not mean they contradict with the stuff that was written before. Contradict actually mean that they are mutually exclusive. The example you gave is NOT a contradiction. So, maybe you can show those people that it isn't a contradiction... but rather a clarification

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 7 2005, 09:06 AM'] Ecclesia semper reformanda.

I would think that the Church is always (with perhaps occasional missteps -- though never in serious matters) improving its understanding of Truth. My understanding is that newer documents would be more definitive.

Of course, many with Church Faithful/Church Militant banners say I'm wrong. I guess my trying to understand and obey the Magesterium, the Pope, and the latest catechism was bad.

I feel like crying, [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]"help, help, I'm being scandalized"[/url] but I'm just an unknown newbie. Maybe this isn't the place for me.

Sigh. [/quote]
Who's giving you trouble Philothea?

Send them my way! :angry:

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 7 2005, 09:06 AM'] ...but I'm just an unknown newbie. Maybe this isn't the place for me.

Sigh. [/quote]
Hey now, don't you touch that dial.

I like looking at your adorable avatar. Stay.

[Ash Wednesday]

Regarding the Catechism, I think many traditionalists feel this way about Vatican II, as well.

[Jaime]

And there's quite a few folks around here who are almost as nice as Ash

<------striving to be as nice as Ash every day

[thessalonian]

Here is my response copied over

One must be very careful in declaring contradictions that they are actual contradictions. The same holds true for dichotomies which cause no end of problems in apologetics. i.e. is the Eucharist a symbol or reality. It's not either or, it is both.

Tell me. Is it a contradiction to say that a ball is round and red and rubber or to say that it is made up of a certain chemical composition of hydrogen and carbon atoms, has a certain hue on the color spectrum and that it has a 3 inch radius?

As for the "contradiction you bring up" there is a black and white way of looking at lies. Yet the Church has always seen diminished culpability based on other factors such as invincible ignorance for instance which may diminish a particular sinful act so that the sinner is not culpable. In the case you bring up the culpability is greatly diminished by the consequences of revealing the whereabouts of Jews. You are preventing murder. A similar question might be presented to them, well the older Catechism says "thou shalt not kill", yet they do not detail times when killing is okay such as a just war or in self defense of defense of our wives and children.

Bottom line take a deep breath and think when someone raises supposed dichotomies. Also be sure and know your Bible, know your Catechism, and know Church teaching so you can easily refute such nonsense.

My 2 cents.

[thessalonian]

Another thing to keep in mind is that historical context is important in evaluating statements made by the Church. For instance one Pope (can't remember which offhand) condemned democracy. No kidding. Yet another praised it. (Pius XII). Context. The first case was with regard to aethisitic democracy of the French revolution. The second was with regard to American democracy. So never let someone give you a quote from a Pope or a council or a book at face value. Always be willing to track it down and find the context before your jump the gun and go down the path of liberalism.


Blessings

[philothea]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='May 7 2005, 03:55 PM'] Who's giving you trouble Philothea?

Send them my way! :angry: [/quote]
Aww, thanks.

There are a lot of people saying a lot of things, and I'm probably smooshing it all together in my mind and getting excessively upset.

The clearest example was in the Iraq War poll where I tried to use the catechsim to evaluate the question, and was told by a Church Scholar that something in Aquinas is contrary to the catechism, so the stuff in catechism is wrong.

If I can't rely on THE catechism and THE pope to guide my conscience, what good is this whole Church thing? Argh!

I totally understand if the Catechism, and some encyclicals, are giving a simplified version of teachings, for which a more nuanced interpretation may be found elsewhere. But TOTALLY WRONG? Are you kidding me? No one gave me a copy of the Summa when I joined the Church. (Good thing too, since it was a mile long walk home. )

Anyway, it's possible I misunderstood. There hasn't been a response to my request for clarification.

I'm going to start ranting soon. Woops, already did.

[philothea]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='May 7 2005, 04:05 PM'] Hey now, don't you touch that dial.

I like looking at your adorable avatar. Stay. [/quote]
Who am I kidding? I'm addicted to you guys.

(thanks!)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 7 2005, 09:35 PM'] Aww, thanks.

There are a lot of people saying a lot of things, and I'm probably smooshing it all together in my mind and getting excessively upset.

The clearest example was in the Iraq War poll where I tried to use the catechsim to evaluate the question, and was told by a Church Scholar that something in Aquinas is contrary to the catechism, so the stuff in catechism is wrong.

If I can't rely on THE catechism and THE pope to guide my conscience, what good is this whole Church thing? Argh!

I totally understand if the Catechism, and some encyclicals, are giving a simplified version of teachings, for which a more nuanced interpretation may be found elsewhere. But TOTALLY WRONG? Are you kidding me? No one gave me a copy of the Summa when I joined the Church. (Good thing too, since it was a mile long walk home. )

Anyway, it's possible I misunderstood. There hasn't been a response to my request for clarification.

I'm going to start ranting soon. Woops, already did. [/quote]
The Catechism is a sure norm of the Catholic Faith.
Anybody who says it is not says it should be ignored, no matter what their title is.

It is not all of Catholic teaching, but a good summation of what we believe.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 7 2005, 08:40 AM'] I've heard some people say that there are contradictions between certain things the Catechism of the Catholic Church says and those that previous catechisms say. A small example is that the current catechism says that it's not lying to withhold the truth from somebody who has no right to the truth (telling the Nazis you're not hiding any Jews when you really are doing so comes to mind). But previous catechisms don't make this distinction. I've heard other alleged contradictions as well, but this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Anyway, how does one answer someone who claims there are contradictions between catechisms and wants to know which one should be believed? Thanks in advance.

Oh, just for the record, the people whom I've heard make such statements are so-called Catholic traditionalists who seem to think the current catechism is inferior to previous ones. [/quote]
does the catechism really say this? I dont agree with it if it does...........if someone asks you for the truth and you withhold it from them because you think they dont deserve it..............no, this would be judging them.........the bible says that judging others is wrong. There is no way to tell who is deserving of the truth and who isnt.

[Dave]

Judging? I think not!

If you were hiding a Jew during World War II, and you told the truth to the Nazis -- that you were hiding a Jew, you'd be an accomplice to the sin of murder!

And if it's a situation where the truth could get someone hurt or killed, then there's no question that the person to whom you're speaking has no right to the truth!

[Aloysius]

actually, I believe Aquinas was the first one with this idea... I don't know where but I'm pretty sure.

it's "evasive action"... i.e. not telling mistruth but not volunteering all information. you do not have to volunteer information to everyone in all circumstances.

for example, during WWII there were nuns hiding Jews in a convent. the Nazi officer asked the nuns if there were any jews in the covnent, the nun replied "why would there be jews in a convent??"

anyway, no one else has a right to know everything, you can decline to give them information or avoid specifying in specific cases. you are not lying, you simply are not telling them everything... you are not required to tell everyone everything.