Talk:Catechism of the Catholic Church

Theological opinion vs. doctrine
The text reads: American Catholic bishops have stated that, though theological opinion was not intended to be a part of CCC, it in fact "does not distinguish between matters of faith and theological opinion."

This is incorrect. The Bishops Conference did not claim that the Catechism confuses theological opinion and matters of faith and doctrine. That was a criticism of the Catechism leveled by a theology professor who is not a bishop. Here's the text cited in footnote 20, which can be found here: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/catechism/flawed-expectations/fe-ch6.htm:

"As one instance of how a typical member of the current theological establishment views the Catechism, we may take the views of Fr. Francis Buckley, S.J., a professor of systematic and pastoral theology at the University of San Francisco. Fr. Buckley was one of the Woodstock group of scholars who attacked the draft catechism in the book entitied [p. 207] The Universal Catechism Reader, which, as we noted in Chapter Three, found the draft "fatally flawed".2 His negative view of the completed Catechism proved to be equally pronounced. In an article entitled "What to Do with the New Catechism", Fr. Buckley declares that "it would be a mistake to hand the text of the new Catechism to everyone. It does not distinguish between matters of faith and theological opinion." He probably means the Catechism teaches as part of the doctrine of the faith things the new theologians consider "opinion" and hence subject to change by them."

````Fr. Daniel P. Moloney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.126.45 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting this tremendous error! --Zfish118⋉talk 18:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312145145/http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913014703/http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.shtml to http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

typical edition
This is not a translation of editio typica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.227.229 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on your concern? Are you referring to the Catechism being a translation from the Latin, or are you talking about the translation of the word "editio typica" itself? –Zfish118⋉talk 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this information notable?
Does the information about the glitches on the Vatican website deserve to be mentioned in the article? Veverve (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't see this vital to the article, but it would be worthwhile to post about on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. We have a lot of links to the catechism website that might be impacted. –Zfish118⋉talk 01:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"New Catechism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New Catechism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead dispute
User:Veverve, I wish you'd be more collaborative rather than merely reverting. What is the POV issue here? The Catechism was prepared by the Church's contemporary experts on its doctrine. Furthermore, no article should have a tautology as its opening sentence; it's weak writing and irritating to read. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To state the CEC is the authority, the fundamentals, is a conservative POV. Furthermore, it is nowhere stated in the article, and JPII's claims are but claims. What secondary reliable sources can you provide to state what you wrote about the CEC?
 * Readers should be informed of what the Catholic Church and a catechism is through hyperlinks as early as possible in this article due to its title. Talk:Biblical canon has decided that sometimes tautologies are necessary in the lede, and I think this applies also here.
 * Veverve (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't used the word "authority." I have used "doctrine," i.e. what the contemporary leadership teaches as correct, even if someone else believes that it is is not. If you are proposing that JPII might have been mistaken about the purpose for which he personally promulgated the Catechism (a reference for the development of local catechisms), I think there is an onus to find anyone who says so. As for the Biblical canon article, the opening sentence there is not merely a repetition of the same words, and does not defer the introduction of the subject to another sentence or other articles. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the current phrasing in the lead could be improved. For instance, a line could be added describing the traditional function of a catechism to avoid the tautology. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is an onus to find anyone who says so:
 * there is not merely a repetition of the same words: the Catechism of a Revolutionary is not a catechism. Catechism as a word in the title does not always refer to a content expected in, or to the meaning of the word "catechism".
 * Veverve (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to read me as saying something different from what I have. Guess it's hopeless. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This version that had been reverted is strong. The reference to 8 million copies sold could be easily removed if objectionable, but it being translated into multiple languages is notable. –Zfish118⋉talk 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is strongly POV, yes. Veverve (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a content issue, and I gave a WP:Third Opinion. Two editors disagree with your assertion there is a "strong POV" being pushed. However, I even removed the 8-million copies fact. It is a simple and notable fact, however, that it was translated into 20 languages. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus beat having to provide reliable sources and avoiding POV-pushing, I know that thanks. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, WP:NPOV states editor consensus never beats POV concerns at all... Veverve (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)