For those of us who grew up in the wake of the Second Vatican Council—the era of felt banners and guitar Masses—the confusion over what the Catholic Church taught was real.
The catechesis of the 1970s became a cautionary tale, a model for what not to do when passing on the faith.
Our well-meaning teachers told us that “all you need is love,” echoing the Fab Four instead of reaching for the Baltimore Catechism. In 1978, they joked that after Pope John Paul I, we might just get Pope George Ringo.
Instead, we got John Paul II.
One of the Polish pontiff’s seminal accomplishments was to give us the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The English-language version dropped 30 years ago this week.
The Catechism was an instant international best-seller that became a reality only with the intervention of an American businessman. More on that in a moment.
John Paul II inherited the arduous task of unpacking Vatican II, arguably the most important religious event of the 20th century. The Council met in four sessions between 1962 and 1965. Pope St. John XXIII, who opened the Church’s 21st ecumenical council, asked bishops to examine how the Church could best proclaim the Gospel in the modern era.
Twenty years later, in 1985, John Paul convoked a meeting of bishops to examine how well the Church had implemented the Council. The synod returned with several recommendations, including the suggestion that the Church produce a new, comprehensive universal catechism.
Critics harped that the Church didn’t need a new Catechism. Papal biographer George Weigel has noted that opponents of the proposal said that Catholics were no longer interested in “conceptual” approaches to religious education.
John Paul II persevered.
On May 27, 1994, the pope received the first English-language version of the Catechism. Even though nearly 700,000 copies of that version were on shelves by the end of June, the pope had no idea that he had an international bestseller on his hands.
Since its 1992 publication in French, the Catechism has sold about 20 million copies in at least 44 languages. It is the first comprehensive document to explain Catholic faith and morals in more than 400 years.
Following the Council of Trent (1545–1563), called in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Vatican published the Roman Catechism in 1566; council fathers found it necessary because both priests and the lay faithful at the time were poorly catechized.
John Paul II saw a parallel after the Second Vatican Council.
Decades of poor catechesis and the disastrous “Spirit of Vatican II” had the Catholic Church in turmoil. In developing a new universal catechism, John Paul II didn’t primarily intend to squash dissent. Instead, he wanted to put forth a modern, comprehensive, and authoritative teaching document containing all the tenets of the Catholic faith contained in Scripture and Tradition.
He tasked a group of 12 bishops with creating the new catechism. They were led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—the future Pope Benedict XVI, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—and Fr. Christoph Schönborn, later archbishop of Vienna.
Like all major undertakings, there were hiccups.
One significant obstacle was funding. Tight budgets had virtually brought the Vatican’s ambitious project to a grinding halt. The project apparently found an unlikely savior in American pizza tycoon Tom Monaghan.
The Domino’s Pizza founder was on a pilgrimage to Rome in the late 1980s and met with Schönborn. Monaghan, who would sell Domino’s for $1 billion in 1999, told the Austrian priest that he would sponsor the research, travel, staff, and equipment necessary to complete the project. In 2003, Schönborn acknowledged that without Monaghan, the Catechism might never have been published.
Politically correct opposition demanded gender-neutral language. But the English-language version retained the generic use of “man” and “men” for humanity, both men and women.
John Paul II also drew fire for the Catechism’s stance on the death penalty after later revisions. The Catechism’s first edition discouraged authorities from capital punishment. In 1997, John Paul ordered an update of paragraph 2267 limiting the use of the death penalty to circumstances where it was the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
That revision was drawn from his 1994 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, in which he wrote that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
In 1999, John Paul told Catholics in St. Louis that “modern society has the means of protecting itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
Twenty years later, Pope Francis revised the passage again. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and the Catholic Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
In its 30-year run, the Catechism has proven to be an indispensable resource for catechesis and evangelization. It spells out the “what” and “why” of Church teaching—and distinguishes the Catholic Church from other world religions.
After all, what other major faith has published a comprehensive volume of its beliefs and the reasons behind them?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Key difference between Trent and Vatixan II: uncatechised “Catholics” was CAUSED by the Council, just one of the wicked consequences which flowed from “the Spirit of Vatican II”.
It is also note worthy that ppBXVI stipulated the Catechism of Pius X was still valid… as was the Roman Catholic Mass dating back to Christ. “Novos Ordo” means “New”. The revolution was clearly labelled to rhyme with “Novos Ordo Seculorum” and please the Masters…
More information on the “mass dating back to Christ”, please. Not familiar with it. Very interested.
Here are some tidbits, for others to refine or possibly correct…
From the beginning of the second century, the written Didache gives some clues about the Mass at that time. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm.
St. Luke’s earlier and biblical Acts of the Apostles also offers some abbreviated glimpses, also, I think, a Letter of St. Paul.
My memory is that the 16th-century Council of Trent established and gave uniformity to the Mass, partly to clarify Protestant sacramental heresies. And, to unify the Church in practice, that is, partly in response to variations that had popped up in many places. Gregorian chant came in the 9th and 10th centuries (partly as an adjustment to the resonating acoustics of the basilican church form–a side story).
A century prior to Trent, the Dominican Mass was identical to the Tridentine except for one or two lines. So, I was told, by a very Eucharistic priest, a convert, who celebrated both forms but routinely stayed with the Dominican Mass on some weekdays, through all of the post-Vatican II controversy up until his death on the Feast of Our Lady Guadalupe in 1998. The reasons for this seeming exemption—for never being confronted by the chancery office—surely included his obvious holiness, his below the radar simplicity, and his biblical scholarship and extraordinary ecumenical appeal, and partly the organizational detail that he was a Dominican rather than a diocesan priest. Also, and surely, a living and beloved saint.
The Novus Ordo was restored from de-legitimization, by Pope Benedict who intended that, as the “extraordinary form” of the same RITE as the Novus Ordo (not a different rite!), it could in time enable a convergence partly to elevate the flattening ambiguities of the Novus Ordo. Which is to say that “time is greater than space,” except when space is greater than time…
Line 12: By “celebrated both forms” I mean the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” (Tridentine) forms of the Novus Ordo rite.
“The first source for the history of the mass is obviously the New Testament. In the New Testament we find the root of the whole matter in the account of the last supper”
Adrian Fortescue, The Mass – a study of the Roman Liturgy
Christ’s encounter on the road to Emmaus was in the form of the Mass. The Liturgy of the Word, followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
I remember something that the catechism triggered big controversy about and well it should have. For years Christians of many denominations had complained that popular Christian books never made the New York Times bestseller list although books about other religions sometimes did. The Times simply said that none of them were ever really popular. Then came the monumental task of publishing the catechism. It took the combined resources of FIFTHTEEN publishers to bring it out. Next to the Bible it had the most copies ever published of any book in the history of the United States. The best seller list did not mention it! The output of even one of the publishers should have been enough to put it on the list. They could not tap dance out of that one. It was obvious that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.
30 years this month.
Reminds me – I need to get back to Fr. Mike Schmitz’s Catechism in a Year podcast.
I bought a copy of the catechism some years back in a used bookstore where I found it had a handwritten Latin note written on flyleaf with a very convincing John Paul II signature at end… but with my poor Latin I recognized only a few words, one of which was monax and a clue to the joke, and sure enough when home, found it translated to, “How many chucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood”.
When that catechism was released in English, I read it end to end immediately, then immediately another time, and likely 5-6 times since. Not terribly well organized, too much pertaining to one thing found actually elsewhere, but it’s all there with enough back and forth and digging, while the footnotes/sources a gold mine.
I happen to agree with JPII on the death penalty, a blanket condemnation leaves poorer areas defenseless when lacking adequate incarceration facilities if killers able to easily escape (muchly with gang aid) or no place to lock them in the first place…the entire world is not like the West, and Francis made a very prejudiced privileged Western assumption with his rewrite.
Twenty years later, Pope Francis revised the passage again. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and the Catholic Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
Catechisms derive their authority from the underlying magisterial documents. In this case, Bergoglio didn’t cite one because it doesn’t exist. While the CCC is one of the crowning achievements of Pope John Paul II’s pontificate, he set an unfortunate precedent with his meddling and confusion on this section.
Dear Rich,
With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken. The revised text of no. 2267 of the Catechism cites Pope Francis’s “Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization” of 11 October 2017. Papal addresses (also called allocutions) are expressions of the ordinary papal Magisterium. Otherwise, all those allocutions of Pius XII cited by Feser and Bessette in their book defending capital punishment would be non-magisterial.
When the change to 2267 of the Catechism was announced in August of 2018, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an explanatory letter that contains magisterial references from John Paul II and Benedict XVI that demonstrate the development off the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.
In his 2020 encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, no. 265, Pope Francis cites Pope Nicholas I’s 866 Letter to the Bulgarians, which argues against capital punishment. Here is the key passage from that magisterial letter:
“For in this manner the blessed apostle Paul—who previously was an insolent persecutor breathing threats and killings against the disciples of the Lord [cf. Acts 9:1]—after he attained mercy and was converted by divine revelation—not only did he not impose the death penalty on anyone but he also wished to be anathema for the faithful [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most freely for the souls of the faithful [cf. 2 Cor. 12:15]. In the same manner, after you have been called by the election of God and illumined by his light, you should no longer desire deaths like before but without doubt and in every occasion (omni occasione) you must (debetis) call back (revocare) everyone (omnes) to the life of the body as well as the soul. And just as Christ has led you from eternal death—in which you were held bound—to eternal life, just so with diligence you are to save from death not only the innocent but also the guilty, in accordance with the most wise Solomon: ‘Save those who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to execution’ (Prov. 24:11).”
Nothing in the Church’s tradition or magisterium supports Bergoglio’s blanket condemnation of capital punishment. Moreover, assuming your citation is accurate, he cited his own speech, not an exhortation or encyclical or anything with any sort of doctrinal heft. And the allocations cited by Professor Feser defend Church teaching and don’t attempt to overturn it.
The 2020 encyclical you mention was after his illegitimate change to the text of the CCC.
Pope Francis, as the Roman Pontiff, has magisterial authority. If you don’t accept this, then you set yourself against the teaching of Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus chapter 3) and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 22 and 25). There has been a legitimate development in the Catholic Church’s teaching on capital punishment. This is explained in the August 1, 2018 Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Your judgment that the change in the CCC on capital punishment was illegitimate is your own opinion. It has has no magisterial authority whatsoever. Perhaps this article will be of some help in understanding magisterial authority and capital punishment: https://wherepeteris.com/category/life-issues/capital-punishment-and-magisterial-authority/ Prof. Feser responded to this article, and he tried to appeal to a 2004 memorandum of Cardinal Ratzinger as having the authority to interpret doctrine. Well the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has now upheld the change to the CCC on the basis of doctrinal development. If Prof. Feser accepts the authority of the CDF to interpret doctrine, he should accept what the CDF said in its 2018 letter about the legitimate doctrinal development of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment. If you believe the change in the CCC on the death penalty is in error, you have every right to appeal to the Dicastery of Doctrine of the Faith to express your concern. The one to judge the matter, however, is the DDF or Pope Francis—not you or Prof. Feser. I notice you refer to Pope Francis as “Bergoglio.” Do you accept him as the Roman Pontiff or not?
Francis is the only pope I know of who consistantly cites mostly himself, with outside citations few and often out of context, as he does not truly seek continuity as always understood and with all prior teachings, but instead fishes for things obscure or out of context in order to change things. His documents are a primer in self-reference…showing his contempt for all but himself.
This is just the opinion of a simple guy in the pew but having read both the “Catechism” and “Catholicism for Dummies” I believe the vast majority of Catholics would be better served by picking up the “Dummies” book. It is written for regular people and is actually very good.
A far better “by/for dummies” catechism was being handed out like candy by priests to inquirers into Catholicism in the 1970s, and I was one of the recipients. It’s title was “Christ Among Us”.
To a seeker like me, the first half was thrilling, it all made perfect sense of the religion of Christianity, unlike my own denomination, but then it started waffling and equivocating on all the major moral issues, pretty much abandoning all which came before, and I was thinking, “they are just as bad as everyone else in contradiction and paradox.”
It was at least 10yrs later before I looked again into the religion and Catholicism, and found that the first book was heterodox, when I started reading orthodox works which had none of the paradox at all, because they preserved the internal logic of the religion.
The problems today in the Church are from those who subscribe to the paradox model, where they cannot see that once any of the original is contradicted, then there is no reason to believe even an iota. If it got that much wrong early on, why should it be trusted about anything.
But that is what was being taught in the 1970s, from near every direction.
You are in one sense correct. The Catechism of 1992 is a reference book, not a book you can sit down and read for pleasure. If you have a particular question, you can easily look up the answer. But no, the book was not meant to be read from the start to the finish. The great triumph of the Catechism is this: Before 1992, when your priest said something weird or downright heretical, most Catholics had no place to go to rebut what the priest said. They basically had to take their priests word for it, because he was the learned one. And no one had access to the basic encyclicals, etc or the time to study the whole broad swath of Catholic teaching. And so many priests at that time were poorly taught themselves, had learned rubbish in seminary or were simply working against the church. After the 1992 Catechism, any Catholic could pick up their catechism, find out what the church REALLY taught, and go confront their wayward priest. It was with great joy I noticed that the creepy National Catholic Reporter, in their comments section, were often rebuked by normal Catholics who could cite the Catechism to prove what the NCR was saying was totally false. Of course, not long after, NCR removed their comments section
I remember well the response of the heterodox to the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. A pantsuit nun at an ecumenical seminary in NYC responded to the announcement of it as if were an invective. My dead abbot would spit the word “catechism” out as a cuss word when anyone invoked its authority.
They all still hold it in contempt and modify it when it suits their purpose, don’t they?
One source of controversy about the CATECHISM was its inadequate translation from the original French into English. Cardinal Law had assigned the task to a priest ill-equipped for the job. Kenneth Whitehead and Msgr. Michael Wrenn, authors of WILL THE CATECHISM BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL?, were among the critics who help correct the situation. Sometimes, the Good Guys win.
Three comments related to the Catechism: an earlier conversion story, something about continuity, and a link for those interested in the edits between the English in 1994 and the 1997 edition:
FIRST, the testimony of the prolific novelist, Frances Parkinson Keyes who, still a few years prior to the Council, said this of her conversion:
“At the same time that I was absorbing the essential joyousness of Catholicism as contrasted to the essential austerity of Puritanism, I was also observing the unswerving policy of the Catholic Church in regard to what, for lack of a better expression, might be called basic decency. With this, so I discovered, it never compromised. In the midst of a confused and chaotic world it remained steadfast in its attitude not only toward the famous Seven Deadly Sins, but toward degeneracy and depravity in any form. It declined to countenance lewd literature or debased dramatics. It stood unswervingly for the permanence and sanctity of family life. It encouraged and upheld its children’s groping efforts to achieve and maintain a state of grace, guiding and forgiving, but never condoning.”
Not exactly a profile of ersatz versions of synodality…
SECOND, no wonder the 1992 Catechism was resisted! It retained the four-part organization of the Trent Catechism: Prayer, Sacraments, the Moral Life, and the Creed. AND, the moral life includes both the commandments and the Beatitudes, rather than substituting the latter for the former.
In the Introduction, we find the following: “This Catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both [!] faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council, and the whole of the Church’s Tradition.”
THIRD, for those interested in the 1997 fine-tuning of the Catechism, here’s a link to the edits: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm