April 2000 Print

Craig L. Heimbichner

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a monumental work—arguably the crowning achievement of John Paul II's papacy. Most welcome is its clear application of sound moral theology to modern situations, such as in vitro fertilization and abortion. Furthermore, the Catechism in several instances aligns Vatican II teaching more explicitly with traditional Catholic teaching. As welcome as these facets may be, however, there are several passages in the Catechism which must invariably strike an instructed Catholic with alarm. I will quote some of these passages with the following clarificaiton of intent. I am not attempting to usurp the Magisterium, but rather to compare the Catechism, which is not issued with the stamp of infallibility, with statements of the Church which carry such a mark. Proof of the lack of infallibility of the Catechism is found in the fact that it has already been revised in a new Editio typica—a clear concession to certian weaknesses in the first edition.

Here are a few passages in the Catechism which raise immediate questions:

GNOSTICISM

Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter CCC), No. 618: ...in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man...

In the Summa (III, Q. 4, A. 5), St. Thomas answers the question, "Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature in All Individuals?" in the negative: "...this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of God, as He is the First-born of many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the First-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all men would be of equal dignity."

In other words, if Jesus united Himself with all men in the Incarnation, then all would be united with God and hence automatically divine in dignity—equal with the dignity of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, would not all men be saved, if the mere fact of the Incarnation united all to God? Certainly God loved us all in the act of the Incarnation, but to unite to us is a different matter altogether. He is not naturally united to us, for we are not God, and are distinct from Him in His act of creating us. (Moreover, we are not created through the act of the Incarnation.) He is not supernaturally united to us, for that is the goal: to reconcile us to Himself through the blood of the Cross, for which purpose He incarnated.

If we are all united to Him already, then our separation from Him is an illusion, as the Gnostics teach, rather than a condition to be actually remedied by the Atonement, as the Church teaches. We find, then, that the Catechism repeats the early heresy of Gnosticism and implies a universal salvation which simply needs to be "realized."

PROMOTION OF EVOLUTION

CCC, 283: ...scientific studies...have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

To speak of the "development of life-forms" and scientific studies surrounding the "appearance of man" is unquestionably to speak of evolution—and to speak of enriching our knowledge of evolution is undeniably to imply that evolution is a fact, since knowledge is of truth, not error. The Catechism thus treats evolution as factual and certain. This approach to evolution, however, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (36):

Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the fact...and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

This passage in the Catechism is, then, at minimum a rash transgression.

EXONERATING THE JEWS

CCC, 597: ...we cannot lay responsibility for the trial [of Jesus] on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole....Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and on our children!"

But Scripture says:

The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they have become adversaries to all men, to fill up their sin always; for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end (I Thess. 2:14-16).

The destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the dispersion of the Jews was due to their rejection of the Messiah, a rejection which continues to implicate them as a people unfaithful to God and therefore abandoned (cursed) by Him. St. Alphonsus Liguori writes:

Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood! (The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, p. 444).

St. Basil the Great writes:

And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: "His blood be on us and on our children" [Mt. 27:25] (On Prayer, Sermon IX).

These statements do not imply "anti-Semitism," a term which denotes race-hatred; still less did such statements cause the Holocaust, a ritual of human sacrifice which included Catholics such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, carried out by the Masonic-Occult SS members under Hitler, who tried to eliminate Catholicism as well. But to use the Holocaust as a pretext for overturning truths essential to salvation (and the Jews must return to their Messiah to be saved) is worse than the Holocaust, for the first event merely kills the body (admittedly a great evil), while robbing the Jews of the means of salvation consigns their souls to hell (an infinite evil). Hence this seemingly charitable passage about the Jews in the Catechism is in reality an abandonment of all charity for the Jews and a true act of anti-Semitism.

THE OLD COVENANT STILL EXISTS!

CCC, 840: And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah.

Extending the above error, this passage is a misleading absurdity, since the Old Covenant no longer exists due to the Jews' rejection of the Messiah, who has already come! St. Vincent Ferrer writes:

Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered, "This is a harlot!" and gave her a bill of divorce (Sermons).

Scripture declares:

Christ annuls the First Covenant to establish the Second....For, if that First Covenant had been faultless, then there would be no place for the Second. They did not persevere in My Covenant, saith the Lord, and I disregarded them (Heb. 10:9; 8:7-9).

Finally, to compare the "similarities" of expecting the Messiah's first and second coming, when one act implies a rejection of Him, is as ridiculous as comparing the acts of worship of a Satanist and a Catholic, since both are similar in that they are undeniably acts of worship. The obvious rejoinder is that the differences far outweigh the similarities.

INDIFFERENTISM

CCC, 819: Christ's Spirit uses these [Protestant] Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation...

This statement dignifies heresy as a means of salvation, and flatly contradicts a defined dogma of the Church, that outside the Church there is no salvation. To quote one example of the Church's perennial magisterial teaching on this subject:

It [the Church] believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Mt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino, Bull of Eugenius IV).

The heresy taught by the Catechism is known as Indifferentism—that is, the belief that one is free to choose other religions, since salvation can be found in them all.

FALSE ECUMENISM

CCC, 821: Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call [to unity]:...prayer in common...fraternal knowledge of each other.

These ecumenical meetings are condemned by Scripture:

A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that such a man is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment (Tit. 3:10-11).

If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house nor say to him: "God speed you." For, he who says to him "God speed you" communicates with his wicked works (Jn. 1:10-11).

Moreover, the Council of Carthage declares:

One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.

Of ecumenical meetings, Pius XI declares:

...nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support....To favor this opinion [ecumenism], therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God (Mortalium Animos).

This type of meeting, incidentally, merely smuggles into the Church one of the most basic features of the Masonic Lodge: fraternal meetings between people of different religions in a spirit of Indifferentism.

SECULAR COLLABORATION AND COMPROMISE

CCC, 821: ...[also required is]...collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind. "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.

Again, this Freemasonic concept of fraternal association outside of the banner of the Kingship of Christ and His Church has been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his Apostolic Mandate on the "Sillon," which was just such an organization. He writes:

We fear that worse is to come...the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion...more universal that the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God." "We do not work for the Church; we work for mankind!" This organization...has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy; neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions...under the pretext of freedom and human dignity.

One might also note that "freedom" and "human dignity," as well as secular collaboration, are not only trademarks of Freemasonry, but are also hallmarks of the "pastoral" Vatican II Council: a Council which lacked, according to Pope Paul VI, infallibility. As the Pope said:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings....The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: Given the Council's pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

We might add that what is not infallible can obviously be wrong—and where it conflicts with prior infallible Church teaching, it simply is wrong.

HOMOSEXUALITY

CCC, 2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition...

This statement is indeed difficult to square with the teaching of Pope Alexander VII, who declares:

Sodomy and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species...

Is it also true that tendencies toward bestiality are not chosen as well? In contrast to the statements of the new Catechism (which clearly panders to the recent propaganda from the homosexual lobby), the Bible puts the entire blame for such sins on the people themselves, who first turn away from God and idolize the things of this world:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error (Rom. 1:25-27).

Encouraging people to "accept" within themselves what the Bible calls "shameful affections" but not to "act them out" is simply setting these people up for a future fall. Instead, homosexuals need the clear moral teaching of the Church, prayer, and the sacraments, and they can be transformed as truly as St. Augustine, who gave up a mistress and became a saint.

INTERNATIONALISM

CCC, 1911: Human interdependence is increasing....The unity of the human family...implies a universal human good. This good calls for an organization of the community into nations able to provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, and certain situations arising here and there.

In Number 7 above, we quoted the condemnation of this concept by Pope St. Pius X. The gravity of this particular passage is that it far surpasses the Sillon condemned by the Pope and clearly endorses World Government. Now, World Government is the age-old dream of Freemasonry. As Fr. Cahill, an expert on Freemasonry, wrote in 1929:

These two fundamental characteristics of Freemasonry, namely, indifference in matters of religion, which means absence of all real religion, and a tendency towards cosmopolitanism and internationalism, which would supplant the Christian duty of patriotism and loyalty to the State by some kind of ineffective international humanitarianism, remain to this day outstanding features of the Masonic spirit. (Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, p. 6).

We saw the first Masonic characteristic—indifferentism—in the Catechism in Nos. 3-6 above (there are many other passages as well, which space precludes listing); the second Masonic characteristic—internationalism—is also strongly pronounced in this Catechism as well. Since the Church has condemned Freemasonry in the strongest terms in approximately 200 encyclicals, what are we to make of the Masonic "thumbprints" in the Catechism?

The Masons stated their goal of "the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea..." from 1820-1846 in the documents of the Alta Vendita which were disclosed to Pope Gregory XVI and published by Pope Pius IX. The Masons also stated that, to implement their goal, they would need a Pope according to their needs, who would march with the clergy under the Masonic standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys. With the publication of the new Catechism—as with the documents of Vatican II, the New Mass, Ecumenism, and the pan-religious meetings of Assisi and the Vatican—the Masons have once again set the Pope and the clergy marching under the wrong banner.

Enough has been written in the above excerpts to demonstrate that the Catechism contains, to put it mildly, many teachings which contradict Scripture and Tradition. But how, then, can we make use of it? While the Catechism belongs to the authentic Magisterium of the Church, we must nevertheless conclude that where it conflicts with Tradition—the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church—it is simply in error. Furthermore, if these errors mislead us in matters of faith essential to salvation, then we are bound by the ordinary principles of moral theology to avoid the Catechism  completely, even if it contains many beautiful teachings and clarifies certain points of morality of particular concern to our times. As St. Paul writes: "But though we or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).

A much better course would be to take the Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued in saner times, as a course of study. Moral questions can also be clarified by recourse to The Sources of Catholic Dogma, compiled by Denzinger, a standard reference work. Finally the Douay-Rheims Bible, uncontaminated by modernist footnotes, should be loved and read by every Catholic. For our instruction in the faith, we have treasures enough—truly Catholic treasures which will help us to reach Heaven. But a "semi-Catholic" Catechism cannot clearly lead us to a "semi-Heaven," since there is no more such a place than there is a state of "semi-grace." No matter what the cost, we must follow the instruction of St. Paul and take care of our souls, lest we be found outside the Kingdom for failing to say "Anathema!" to those who would change the Gospel and implement the "outstanding features of the Masonic spirit." To them all, we must simply say, Anathema!

---

Craig L. Heimbichner was brought up in the Calvinist Reformed Church. He converted to the Catholic Church by reading the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, entering the Church in 1988. He is a concert pianist, received a Master's degree in Education, and currently works as a school administrator in the California public school system. He resides with his wife and family in San Jose, California, where they assist at the Tridentine Mass at St. Aloysius Gonzaga Camp and Retreat Center in Los Gatos.