Earlier today I linked a couple of Zenit stories on the release of the Compendium of the Catechism. Zenit also carried a story excerpting certain questions from the Compendium. Here goes:
3. How is it possible to know God only with the light of reason?
Starting from creation, that is, from the world and the human person, man, with reason alone, can know with certainty a God as origin and end of the universe and as the highest good, truth and infinite beauty.
23. What unity is there between the Old and New Testaments?
Scripture is one, as the Word of God is one; the salvific plan of God is one, the divine inspiration of both Testaments is one. The Old Testament is a preparation for the New, and the New is the fulfillment of the Old: both illuminate one another mutually.
32. How should non-Catholic Christians be regarded?
There are many elements of sanctification and truth in the Churches and ecclesial Communities, which have distanced themselves from the full communion of the Catholic Church. All these goods come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. The members of these Churches and Communities are incorporated to Christ in Baptism: for this reason, we recognize them as brothers.
171. What is the meaning of the affirmation: "There is no salvation outside the Church"?
It means that all salvation comes from Christ-Head through the Church, which is his Body. Therefore, those cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, do not enter it and do not persevere. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those can attain eternal salvation who, without fault, do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church, but seek God sincerely and, under the influence of grace, try to do his will known through the dictates of their conscience.
471. Why must society protect every embryo?
The inalienable right to life of every human individual, from his conception, is a constitutive element of civil society and of its legislation. When the State does not put its force at the service of the rights of all, and, in particular, of the weak, among whom are the unborn conceived, the very foundations of the State of law are undermined.
475. When are scientific, medical or psychological experiments with persons or human groups morally legitimate?
They are morally legitimate if they are at the service of the integral good of the person and society, without disproportionate risks for life and the physical and psychic integrity of the individuals, opportunely informed and with their consent.
482. What is required for peace in the world?
It requires the just distribution and protection of the goods of people, free communications between human beings, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, [and] the assiduous practice of justice and fraternity.
502. What are the offenses to the dignity of marriage?
They are: adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest, free unions (living together, concubinage), the sexual act before or outside of marriage.
514. To what type of work does every person have a right?
Access to secure and honest work must be open to all, free of unjust discrimination, in respect of free economic initiative and a just compensation.
533. What is man’s greatest desire?
Man’s greatest desire is to see God. This is the cry of his whole being: "I want to see God!" Man attains his authentic and full happiness in the vision and the blessedness of the One who created him out of love and attracts him to Himself by his infinite love.
Now, I don’t know how the official English translation will come out, but if it reads like this one in some places, the Compendium will not–as advertised–be suitable for all people of all ages. Seven year-olds are not going to find it easy to memorize and understand what it means to say that "The inalienable right to life of every human individual, from his
conception, is a constitutive element of civil society and of its
legislation."
The answer to question 514 also gets progressively more unintelligible as it goes. I’m thinking that’s just a translation problem, though.
In any event, thanks to Zenit for giving us this glimpse into the Compendium!
502. What are the offenses to the dignity of marriage?
They are: adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest, free unions (living together, concubinage), the sexual act before or outside of marriage.
Where’s contraception?
BillyHW, that was my thought also!
I think contraception is a offense to the dignity of the life.
Julie: Right.
Does anyone have an insight as to when we English-speakers across the pond will get to see this thing? I called the USCCB publications office yesterday and the representative to whom I spoke didn’t even know what it was.
Is #3 saying that we do not need God’s grace to believe? That a person can come to believe and accept Christ through reason alone? Or have I read that incorrectly?
Stephen:
I belief #3 deals more with proof of the existence of God rather than a Faith in God which grace permits.
Make that: “I believe #3…”
StephenL,
IMHO #3 is echoing what St. Paul said in Romans 1:20 as well as the Psalmist who said “the fool in his heart hath said ‘there is no God.'”. Vatican I reiterated this tradition formally by proclaiming that human reason apart from revelation can establish the existence of God (i.e. an infinite personal Being whose essence is his existence etc..). Knowing God exists is not the same as entering into a relationship with Him through faith, and for this we need His grace. Human reason can, however, prepare the intellect by removing obstacles to faith. We also need revelation from God to tell us things about Himself we could never arrive at by reason, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. I am open to correction on any of this, as always.
Regarding #3 this is interesting.
Many of my non-believing friends don’t understand how a well educated person could possibly believe in God as “reason” would dictate that God does not exist! We do talk about it from time to time but so far they are not budging. 🙁
IMO, it is difficult to trust human reason without God, since if all our thoughts and reasoning are just the product of the motions of atoms in the brain than how do we know any of our thoughts are true, and thus that the brain is composed of atoms. Just paraphrasing Haldane in the above but it is still a salient point I think. Most atheists believe in reason and free will (and some even in objective moral values), which are difficult if not impossible to account for from within an atheistic world view.
jpk,
I tried to email you but I guess you’ve listed a fake email. Anyway, I’ll post here.
I disagree.
You’ve stated “since if all our….atoms in the brain…true…composed of atoms” is a materialist assumption that is shared by all(or most) atheists. The problem is that no one has proved that our thought and reasoning are the product of the motions of atoms in the brain. What has been demonstrated is that there is correlation between sensory input and brain activity, between sensory ouput (actions) and brain activity, between memory storage/recall and brain activity. Thoughts involving sensory memory also have a correlation with brain activity. Abstract thought or reasoning without recourse to sensory memory, however has proven much more elusive.
Thus reason and free will have some relation to the brain but don’t appear to be products of the brain. This is why it is so difficult if not impossible to account for them within an atheistic world view. Atheistic physicists, biologists and philosophers have tried and failed (in my opinion) to explain reason and free will. Some of their theories are so odd that they require us to not trust our senses. How then can we trust their theories which only come to us through our senses? Thus, it is equivalent to them telling us “Don’t belive what I’ve just told you”. Thus their explanations end up as gibberish.
It is easy to see that minds and thoughts are *non-material*. All physical beings have *measureable* physical properties, but no mind or thought has any such property. If you have difficulty convincing an atheist of that, ask them to not just communicate their thoughts but to physically *show* you their thoughts. Ask them to show you the massof a thought, its weight, its quantity, its quality, its colour, its texture, its physical location, its momentum, the space it occupies, its change over time, the electromagnetic radiation it absorbs or radiates, its angular momentum, or other physical property. Their failure to do so should prove the non-material nature of minds and thoughts to even the most hardcore but reasoning atheist. If they’re not convinved by this, I don’t know what will convince them. Perhaps some else can suggest alternatives.
Search Jimmy’s blog for some good posts of thought (as related to animals). If you want to read more, email me and I’ll recommend some books.
Ashton,
I agree with everything in your post, and don’t really see where you are disagreeing with me. I was just saying in my post above that IMO, from within an atheistic worldview based on a materialistic metaphysic, real knowledge, freedom, and morality seem very difficulty if not impossible to account for; and they must be accounted for since atheists tend to believe in such things (or at least live as if such things were not merely illusory). But please send me a list of any books that you think might help me discuss this subject more intelligently. Thanks.
By the way, sorry about the bogus email address, just an old habit.
jpk,
No problem, I’ll send you the list. I don’t want to hijack the thread, so I’ve continued my response in the email.