It took five years to compose the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then another five years to prepare the official Latin edition of the text. First published in French in 1992, on September 9 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presented in Rome the official Latin text. All other language versions must now be brought into harmony with the offical text. One main change: a clarification of the teaching on the death penalty

0n September 9, 1997, five years after its original appearance in various modern languages, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, presented in the Holy See Press Office in Rome the official Latin edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"This is not a new Catechism, but only the definitive Latin text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which since 1992 has been translated and published in some 30 languages, and which is being prepared in another 20," Ratzinger said. "All translations, including those already published, will now have to conform to the official edition in Latin."

"It is evident," he added, "that the official version must be definitive, and cannot be subject to changes; it is for this reason that it was preferred to first publish the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a modern language, thus keeping the option of making improvements."

As for the proposals for modifications to the text, Cardinal Ratzinger said that "particular attention has been reserved for some themes, both for their importance and for the considerable number of petitions for changes and corrections. Examples might be the issues of the death penalty and respect for the animal world."

In examining these themes, the commission that drafted the Catechism has kept in mind certain characteristics: "doctrinal

completeness and integrity, essentiality and conciseness, its being a 'point of reference' for the drafting of local Catechisms."

At the same time, it has followed a series of criteria, such as "fidelity to fundamental Christian theological principles; respect for the hierarchy of truths; the choice of a balanced position that will keep in mind, in just proportion, the different aspects implicated in the problem; continuity with plurimillennary ecclesial tradition; attention to the accentuated sensitivity of today's world regarding certain themes, as well as regarding different socio-cultural-religious contexts which sometimes present notable differences in the manner of presenting and providing solutions to these questions; the commitment to limiting to the minimum necessary the changes that had to be made to the original French text, already approved by the Holy Father in 1992."

The cardinal prefect also said that there are nearly 100 paragraphs with content corrections. Nonetheless, there are more paragraphs which have been changed "as a result of attentive verification of the sources of the Catechism."

Lastly, he explained that the official version was written in Latin because this is and continues to be the official language of the Church. Besides, Latin not only guarantees continuity with our roots, but is also extremely important for consolidating the bonds of unity of the faith in the communion of the Church."

The following are a few of the paragraphs out of the nearly 100 in the Catechism that have been modified. The text is first given as it now stands and then as it is to be revised according to the Latin; the English translation is that given by the Vatican.

Par. 88 did say: "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith."

The last sentence now reads: "...or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them."

Par. 2265 did say: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the state."

It now reads: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge."

Par. 2266, which did say: "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

"The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender."

It now reads: "The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender."

Par. 2267 did say: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

It now reads: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

Par. 2296 did say: "Organ transplants are not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their informed consent. Organ transplants conform with the moral law and can be meritorious if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons."

It now reads: "Organ transplants conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. it is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their explicit consent. It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about ... "

Par. 2297 did say: "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 which threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately 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.

It now reads: "Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity.

Par. 2366 did say: "Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which 'is on the side of life' teaches that 'each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.' 'This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.'"

It now reads: " ... must remain open 'per se' to the transmission ... "

Par. 2368 did say: "A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality ... "

It now reads: substitute the words "regulation of births" with "regulation of procreation."

Par. 2372 did say: "The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. It is not authorized to promote demographic regulation by means contrary to the moral law."

The last sentence now reads: "It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law."

Par. 2417 did say: "God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals, if it remains within reasonable limits, is a morally acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives."

It now reads: "Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger answered questions from journalists at the end of his presentation of the official Latin edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on September 9.

A journalist asked the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith why in number 2368 the words "regulation of births" were changed to "regulation of procreation." Ratzinger explained that the correction was required for greater precision in terminology. "When one speaks of the 'regulation of births' one is referring to birth itself, whereas the problem exists from conception," he said. "Birth does not admit regulation, since intervening would mean provoking an abortion."

Concerning the change in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, which deals with the death penalty, one journalist asked if the revision reflected a shift in Church teaching on the death penalty since 1992. The cardinal said that the new text "does not categorically say that it [the legitimate imposition of the death penalty] is impossible, but it gives objective criteria which make it practically impossible for all of them to be met." He added: "This article follows what the encyclical Evangelium Vitae says in this regard."

Cardinal Ratzinger answered another question on the possibility of Mother Teresa of Calcutta being canonized within a short period of time. He said that it is possible, but "existing procedures currently do not foresee canonization by acclamation. Nonetheless, I believe that in cases as limpid as this one, the process can be expedited quite a bit. On the other hand," he added, "such a brilliant life will not pose many problems, so a long process will not be necessary."

Another journalist asked which were for him the three most urgent concerns for the Church at this end of the century. "The first," he said, "is a comprehensible and deep witnessing of the mystery of Jesus Christ that the Church can offer the world, that is, evangelization; the second, given the fragmentation of this witness in different Christian churches, the second urgency would be the commitment to Christian unity; and the third, the witness of charity: that the Church be present as an inspiring force of true charity and a true social sense." l