Editor’s Note: The following is a conversation Christ the King Law Center's (CKLC) president had with a young man (hereinafter referred to as "YM") who was an administrator of CKLC's facebook page. We thought we would share it to clarify any questions or concerns others had regarding our organization and any ties it might have with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) especially considering the recent news about the SSPX. Furthermore, we also believe this conversation might also address any questions or concerns about our position on Vatican II and religious liberty. In order to respect this young man's identity we are not giving out his name.


YM: Hey I was wondering if you could please remove me from the "Christ the King" Facebook admin. I don't feel called to do it right now. Thanks and God Bless. I am just really busy with school right now. I was also going to mention that I am trying to develop my understanding of Vatican II and the Catholic State in an interpretation of continuity with that which came before. I know the site does not necessarily agree with this view so I just wanted to mention where I stand in this issue. God Bless!

CKLC: Hello [name deleted]. Alright. I will remove you. Being a site administrator certainly does not oblige you to spend a certain amount of time doing anything especially when you are busy but you can do what you wish. You also mention that you are trying to develop your understanding of Vatican II and the Catholic State in an interpretation of continuity with that which came before. I do not see how being a site administrator keeps you from doing that. I have certainly tried to learn about how Vatican II can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with previous teaching but we have to be honest that this is, at least, very difficult. My organization has not as of now taken any public position regarding the continuity of the Vatican II documents with regards to tradition. Our beliefs are stated in the "About US" section on our website whereby we affirm our belief in the Tridentine Creed and in Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism. These are things that every Catholic must subscribe to regardless of Vatican II. Vatican II is not a council that defined new dogmas and whatever real or imagined new teachings that contradict prior infallible teachings by the Church and in Sacred Tradition must be rejected. I assume you would believe in that.
​
Also if I may add: I do not know if you have ever read Michael Davies' book "The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty" but if you did not I think you should. It is a clear and balanced analysis on the teaching of the Church regarding religious liberty and its comparison with the liberal errors as well as the difficulties of trying to interpret Vatican II to be in conformity with the traditional Church teaching on religious liberty.

YM: Thank you for your response. I agree that there are indeed a number of passages and documents within the Second Vatican Council that do contain a good amount of ambiguity and are indeed unclear. I definitely do not think this is a good thing. I also believe that there are room for criticism of a number of things about the Council. It is also very true that the Second Vatican Council also did not define any doctrine and so it did was by no means an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But it was infallible in so far as it was an act of the Ordinary Magisterium. And while the Council did not define anything knew (which would require an ascent of faith) it does use the language of development which must be given (a religious ascent of mind and will). Furthermore the Council does touch upon previous Church teaching regarding dogma and previously defined teaching (which I don't believe the Council can contradict in any meaningful way). I would say such development and interpretation of the Council must be done in a matter of continuity rather than rupture. In the case of the Catholic State for example, my understanding is that the Council merely developed the teaching of a Catholic State rather than did away with it. This is true of a development of the relationship between Church and State, which simply gave a more fuller understanding as to what the State could allow and suppress. My understanding is that the Council simply stated that the State was limited to regulating errors dealing with Morality and the Natural Law, while religious errors were developed as being primarily the Church's duty to correct. An idea that was already talked about by Pope Pius XII. Also while religious liberty is indeed a real thing, the Council, namely Dignitatis Humane clearly states that it is limited and regulated by the Common Good. Nor does it prevent the creation or continuation of a Catholic Confessional State. I will look into Michael Davies' book. Also if have not read them already, here are two articles that I read upon Vatican II and the Catholic State which I thought were good reads. I also wanted to simply mention in regards to being a site admin that I also did not want to give the impression that I support or endorse groups such as the Society of Saint Pius and more particularly independence chapels that are not in full Communion with Rome. In regards to the Society of Saint Pius I do believe it is very probable that they will become regularized but for the time being I don't feel comfortable promoting a group that is for one reason or another not in a fully regular canonical position with the Magisterium simply because I do think that full unity is an important issue. God Bless!

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778
Library : Dignitatis humanae and Traditional Teaching on Church and State
<em> Dignitatis humanae </em> and Traditional Teaching on Church and State William Marshner, as a theological editor of Faith & Reason not directly involved in the religious liberty controversy triggered by Prof. Wolfe's article, participated closely in the gathering and evaluation of the various co...
catholicculture.org

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5443/The_End_of_the_Catholic_State.aspx

CKLC: Wow [name deleted]. You have covered a lot here and I respect that. As I said it is your choice if you want to be a site administrator or not. That being said I believe you may be a little bit overly scrupulous in this matter. Nobody sees whether you are a site administrator if you post as an administrator on the facebook page and I do not tell anyone else about you being an administrator nor are you listed as an administrator to the public. Furthermore my organization Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) is not a part of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). We take no official position regarding the SSPX and/or so-called independent chapels other than what we state on our web and facebook page. We certainly do not permit rash judgment of the SSPX such as statements accusing them of schism or heresy especially in light of statements from the Holy See saying that the SSPX is neither. We give the SSPX neither uncritical support nor universal condemnation. Furthermore I have received approval from Father James Fryar of the Fraternity of Saint Peter to list him as a spiritual advisor of CKLC. Go on the webpage and see. Also I have had Father Robert Bishop who does the Latin Mass at St. Therese Church in Alhambra review my website and tell me he saw no problem with it. My theological advisor Mr. David Rodriguez confirmed with his spiritual director that it was alright to be a theological advisor to my group. He is listed on my web page in the "About" section. You may want to consult with your spiritual director/advisor as well. You are welcome to contact all these individuals to confirm although I am not sure how much Father Bishop remembers our conversation since it was over the telephone.

And as I said before CKLC has not taken a position regarding whether Vatican II is in continuity with tradition. If you believe it is in continuity I am not going to consider that as disqualifying you from being a site administrator. However, we do assent and agree and we expect all those who volunteer with us to assent and agree with the traditional infallible teaching of the Church regarding religious liberty especially as expressed in the Encyclical Quanta Cura by Blessed Pope Pius IX. (See here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm). We condemn and reject and we expect all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject any and all of the errors condemned and rejected by the Church in this Encyclical. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Quanta Cura is described as one of the "final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church..."

We also condemn and reject and we expect all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject any and all of the errors condemned and rejected by the Church in Blessed Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. (See here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical "Quanta Cura"... [N]evertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly." (See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm)

The Encyclical Quanta Cura condemns the following statement: "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." (paragraph 3)

These other statements are condemned as well: "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." (Ibid).

The Encyclical goes on to describe this statement as an "erroneous opinion" that is "most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls" and an "insanity": "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." (Ibid). And persons who preach this statement are preaching "liberty of perdition". (Ibid).

Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) condemns and rejects the above statements and expects all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject these statements.

The Syllabus of Errors condemns the following propositions:

"15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) condemns and rejects these propositions and expects all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject these statements.

By: Marc Zarlengo, Esq.

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of The Catholic Esquire. It has been rep-published with permission from the author Marc Zarlengo, Esq. 



Regardless of whether or not you believe the Coronavirus/COVID panic currently sweeping across the fruited plain of the United States is an overblown media-hyped creation or is a real, deadly concern we must respond to on a world-wide scale, the impact of the stay-at-home orders issued by state and local authorities in response has sparked some very serious and grave constitutional questions—especially concerning the First Amendment’s supposed guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
​
More specifically, the question often raised by many Americans staring at an unprecedented level of restrictions on a vast array of liberties in the name of “flattening the curve” is how can the government prohibit religious gatherings of people, such as attending Mass on Sundays, when the Constitution prohibits infringement on the free exercise of religion? Isn’t a prohibition on attending church an obvious infringement on the exercise of religion?

The simple answer is of course it is an infringement on the exercise of religion, that’s not even disputable. The real question that Catholics and others of faith must ask from a constitutional perspective is why isn’t the government required to make an exception in these state and locally ordered stay-at-home orders for attending religious worship services on Sundays?

The answer to this question is because the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) said the government is not required to make exceptions (although they can) in laws to accommodate religious practices so long as the governmental restrictions are generally applicable to everyone, and does not single out religion itself.

For practicing Catholics, this issue not only impacts our ability to participate in in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and to receive sacraments, but very much could impact the final destination of eternal souls! So, we need to understand how we got to this point by looking at the key 1990 SCOTUS case of Employment Division v. Smith. By understanding this case, we can understand why “freedom of religion,” as supposedly enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than an open invitation for governmental control of religion and the Catholic faith to such an extent that it constitutes a rejection of the social kingship of Christ. And then we can ask, what should our response be?

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

The Smith case involved two Oregon men, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who were fired from their jobs at a drug rehab center because they were caught ingesting peyote (a spineless cactus plant with psychoactive properties) for religious purposes at a ceremony sponsored by their Native American church. Use of peyote was considered a criminal act under Oregon law. Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits with the state and were denied because the Employment Division found they were fired for work-related “misconduct”, which disqualified them under Oregon law for unemployment benefits.

Smith and Black appealed the denial of benefits on the grounds that the State of Oregon infringed on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion because peyote was an important ritual and authentic religious practice.  The case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court. Its opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia (surprisingly to some), concluded that Oregon’s prohibition on the use of peyote did not infringe on Smith and Black’s rights under the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment.  

What’s important to understand about the Smith decision is not only that the State of Oregon was found to have the constitutional authority to restrict the religious practices of members of a Native American church, but the reasoning behind the decision. Now that Catholics (and other Christians) are facing extensive restrictions on religious gatherings under stay-in-home orders, the analysis contained in the Smith opinion exposes the reality that the free exercise of religion results in nothing more than a grant of power to the secular government over religion!

Interestingly, none of the Court members rejected the idea that government could restrict certain religious practices. The legal question was whether the government had to first show a “compelling interest” before doing so, or whether the government simply had blanket authority to do so. The Court ultimately agreed with the latter position and determined that

• “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

In other words, so long as a law applies to everyone generally and does not single out religion for a restriction, then the fact it may affect the ability of a citizen to practice his religion does not relieve him from complying with the law.

What the Smith decision on a practical level means for Christians of all stripes is that when your religious practice conflicts with a generally applicable civil law, then the civil law trumps your religious belief and you have to obey the government command. The government doesn’t even need to provide a compelling civic or public safety reason to infringe on your religious belief—it just can. For Smith and Black, Oregon didn’t have to show peyote ingestion was a dangerous practice, all it had to show was that it criminalized peyote use for everyone.

How did Justice Scalia and the rest of the Court’s majority reach this conclusion? The reasoning was quite simple and logical given the principles upon which the United States was founded. If it was any other way, according to Scalia, the government and its courts would have to engage in the next to impossible and inappropriate task of reviewing and analyzing the nature and importance of a claimed religious practice in relation to whatever religion was at issue. Scalia went on to state,

• “Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because ‘we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,’ [citations omitted] and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order.”

There is the reasoning—because we in the United States believe in a diversity of religions and are opposed to the idea of government interference or review of individual religious practices, of which there could be an infinite variety, we cannot expect the courts to assume otherwise valid civil laws to be invalid because anyone can make up any religion and claim it as “their” religious practice. That indeed would seem to make governing for the civil authorities impractical if not impossible.  

At the risk of putting words into Justice Scalia’s mouth, he also seems to be saying that getting into the business of determining legitimate versus non-legitimate religious practices violates a fundamental principle of freedom of religion or interference from government in a nation that prides itself on diversity. The consequence of not having an established religion, such as Roman Catholicism, is that ALL religions have to be presumed valid, regardless of how evil or destructive they are. That is why as a practical matter, all claimed religions are bound to follow the civil, secular laws if law and order is going to be maintained. The trade-off is that while all religions are allowed to exist and operate to some extent, including Catholicism, they must subordinate themselves to the civil authorities on some areas of conflict in order for everyone to live in peace and harmony. That’s the theory anyway, and it was an idea most of the Founding Fathers agreed with.

A Catholic Response to the Smith Case

The problem from a traditional (and authentic) Catholic point of view with all of this, is that the underlying premises accepted by the Court are fundamentally flawed and necessarily result in the rejection of both the divine and natural law as expressed in Christ’s social kingship.

First of all, as Catholics we believe there is only one, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, that can be historically traced back to Christ, and that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Therefore, we cannot support a system that seems to promote or support the idea that God wills the diversity of religions, nor that a valid civil authority can be structured on any teachings contrary to the will of God.

Of course, other religions may say the same thing. But from a Catholic perspective, it doesn’t matter what the other religions believe in this regard. WE have a duty to Christ and to follow His commands and teachings while attempting to convert those who do not believe.

Given what Americans have been taught about fundamental “American principles” that value a diversity of religions, pluralism, and separation of church and state, the Smith decision would seem inevitable and reasonable. However, we know from both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that God does not favor a diversity of religions or the separation of His Church from the civil state in the way protestant and enlightenment political theorists conceived of it.

Secondly, Catholics cannot in good conscience agree to put the law of the state above the God’s laws when they are in direct conflict.

While I am not going to attempt a full and complete treatment of the social teaching of the Church with respect to Church-state relations, it is sufficient to state here that there has always been a recognized division of authority between the civil (temporal) state and the Church, and yet both the state and Church are subordinate to Christ as King.

We see this clearly in Christ’s response to the pharisees when He tells them to “repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22: 17-22). Clearly, there is a sphere of power belonging to the Church and another one belonging to the state. Saint Paul explains that civil authority, i.e. the power of the state, indeed does and should command obedience from its citizens. He explains this is because the power or authority the civil ruler holds is given to him by God: “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1).

This is important to remember when we consider Christ’s social kingship: ALL authority, including both civil and ecclesial, ULTIMATELY comes from God. Christ reminds His followers that “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18). Christ is the “the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.” (Apocalypse 19:16).

Because all authority ultimately comes from Jesus Christ, He is the ultimate “Law Giver, whom obedience is due” says Pope Pius XI. And while His kingdom is a spiritual one, Pius reminds us that

• “It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power.” (Quas Primas, 17).

We learn from St. Thomas Aquinas that Christ’s authority takes the form of Divine Law, natural law, and ecclesial law. The civil (or positive law) is man created law but because all authority comes from God, justice will not allow for any conflict between the civil law and God’s laws. At the end of the day, should there appear to be a conflict between civil commands and God’s laws, the citizen is justified in defending “their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this [civil] authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.”( CCC para. 2241, citing to GS 74, § 5.)

Contrast these principles to those set forth in the Smith case described above. They are inherently incompatible. The Smith opinion, without making any distinction or exception for the teaching of Christ or the Church, held that a civil (man-made law) of general applicability must be obeyed even if such law restricts the ability of the citizen, i.e. Catholic Christian, to engage in religious worship.  According the Supreme Court, the civil law trumps religious law—for the Church, God’s laws trump civil laws when in conflict.

Application to Stay-At-Home Orders

Putting all this together, and circling back to the original question of the validity of stay-at-home orders, we can conclude that although it is the opinion of the Supreme Court and many “constitutionalists”, including politically conservative ones, that there is no legal problem with ordering Catholics to stay away from Mass and receiving sacraments, faithful Catholics should not comply with the civil authorities in the event the civil authority issues an order that contradicts God’s laws.

While the Church itself certainly has some authority over how the sacraments are administered, many believe the ability to access the sacraments and attending Mass, the highest form of worship, is in fact a matter of divine and natural law which cannot be abrogated by any civil authority. Some canon lawyers have opined that even Bishops cannot prohibit attending Mass or reception of sacraments on an open-ended, general basis.

If someone challenged the stay-at-home orders in court based on a violation of the Free Exercise clause, he would likely lose because the government will claim the order are not intended to single out religious worship but apply to the public generally. This would follow from the Smith decision.

But even if the stay-at-home orders are laws of general applicability, which I would argue they are not because of the numerous exceptions contained in them including for abortion clinics and liquor stores, as faithful Catholics we are bound to give due honor and worship to God as a matter of justice. That is, we owe God proper worship in the matter He provided to us through centuries of tradition handed down. We also must take care that our souls and those of our family members receive the graces they need for eternal salvation. These are matters of divine and natural law. The secular government does not get to decide who and when we receive graces or worship the Lord, regardless of whether they think Mass attendance will pose a public danger. That is a matter reserved to Christ and His Church authorities to decide after careful consideration and prudential judgments.

Sadly, this situation will arise more and more as American jurisdictions and their leaders become more secular, atheist and divorced from Christian influence. Many of the secular authorities desire as much as any religious sect to impose their will and beliefs on others through government because their secularism is their religion. We are facing this in a way never seen before now as stay-at-home orders are preventing Catholics from attending Mass and receiving sacramental graces.

 [Yes, legalists, I know God is not bound by the sacraments, but WE are bound by the sacraments, and we should never presume upon God or take it upon ourselves to dispense with the need for sacraments because some atheist governor tells us to.]

As Catholics, and especially the shepherds of the Church, we should know our duty is first and foremost to Christ, regardless of the opinion of the Supreme Court, mayors, governors or health boards. In light of Supreme Court precedent and these civil orders resulting in the systematic destruction of all types of civil liberties, including religious ones, this world-wide crisis seems to provide an opportunity for all of the faithful to learn about Christ’s Kingship and reconsider with a skeptical eye some of our “founding” American civic principles that have set the stage for the current crisis.

Marc Zarlengo is a licensed attorney with a Juris Doctor and BA in economics. He teaches constitutional law, criminal justice, and business law for community colleges. He is a member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, and enjoys studying Church history, Christian apologetics, theology and philosophy.

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a presentation presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this presentation were taken from Alliance Defending Freedom's guide ON PASTORS CHURCHES AND POLITICS. 


The chart below is designed to give examples of certain "political activities" and whether they are permitted under section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code. 


Political Activity                                                      Church         Clergy [1]

1. Discuss the positions of candidates on issues          Yes                    Yes

2. Endorse or oppose candidates                                No                     Yes

3. Financial contributions to candidates                       No                     Yes

4. In-kind contributions to candidates                         No                     Yes

5. Independent expenditures supporting or opposing
candidates                                                                No                     Yes 

6. Contributions to political action committees (PACs)   No                     Yes

7. Payment of expenses for attendance of a pastor or
church member at a caucus or state/national political
party convention                                                        No                     Yes

8. Appearance of candidate at church meeting or 
service                                                                      Yes                    N/A

9. Nonpartisan voter registration activities                    Yes                    Yes

10. Nonpartisan voter identification activities                Yes                    Yes

11. Nonpartisan get-out-the-vote activities                   Yes                    Yes

12. Nonpartisan voter education                                  Yes                    Yes

13. Lobbying for or against legislation                          Yes                    Yes

14. Expenditures related to state referendums [2]         Yes                    Yes

15. Distribution of:

     a) Candidate surveys or voter guides                       Yes                    Yes

     b) Voting record of incumbents                                Yes                   Yes

​     c) Candidate campaign literature                              No                    Yes

16. Distribution of political materials by others in 
church parking lots                                                      Yes                   N/A

17. Rental of church membership lists at regular rates    Yes                   N/A

18. Rental of church facilities at regular rates                 Yes                  N/A

​19. Church Publications:

     a) Political ads at regular rates                                 Yes                  N/A

     b) News stories about candidates or campaigns         Yes                  N/A

     c) Editorials endorsing or opposing candidates           No                   N/A

[1] Acting as an individual rather than an official church representative. 

[2] Lobbying activities may expose churches in some states to election-law register and reporting requirements as a political committee. Many of these statutes are unconstitutional because they expose churches to intrusive regulations for a very small amount of lobbying. If you find your church exposed to such state election law requirements, contact Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) immediately so we can refer you to an attorney who can review your situation.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.



So this concludes our overview of the Catholic state and how it might look like in today's world.  This state can have different forms of government so long as they are ordered towards the common good of its citizens although a monarchy is the best form of government. However, in order to safeguard against the potential for a monarchy to become a tyranny a mixed form of government would be most prudent which would not exclude including a monarch in that government who is not subject to the whims of an electoral cycle. Furthermore, this state would be united with the Church in governing society but would respect subsidiarity including the patriarchy and private bodies would be permitted to do many of the things state governments now do. The "free market" would be subject to the law of the Gospel just like all "men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ." And not just the moral order but also religion and not just any religion but the only true religion founded by God himself would receive legal protection and endorsement from the state. Private property would be protected within due limits and workers would be guaranteed justice under the law.

[1] Pius XI, Encyclical Quas Primas (1925) 18.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.


​The Catholic Church teaches that employers must pay just wages to their workers. The Church's doctrine on the just wage and the natural rights of laborers in general is developed in the seminal encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891). In this encyclical Leo explains that, because of the Fall of Adam, labor is necessary for man's very survival. Thus, labor is not merely a personal activity in which one can engage or not engage at one's pleasure, but rather the very means by which life is sustained. From this truth of Revelation, says Leo, one must conclude that while free agreements concerning the price of labor are certainly permissible, such agreements, as a matter of natural justice, must provide for the laborer's support and that of his family:

• Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice... If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. [1]

​
The employer's duty to pay his workers a wage sufficient for the support of families-when this is possible, of course[2]-arises from the family's status as the building block of the State," a true society, and one older than the State," which "has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State." [3] 

Therefore in a Catholic social order all employers would strive to pay a living wage to their employees whenever and wherever possible, secured by collective bargaining and arbitration if need be.

Private bodies-such as a modern analogue of the guilds or other forms of workers' association-would oversee such matters as labor disputes and workplace safety, disability and unemployment insurance funds, and measures designed to allow married women with children to remain in the home while their husbands work. As a last resort, local government would be asked to intervene for purposes of dispute resolution.

In terms of employee compensation, local or state law would fix a minimum wage if the competent authority, either the electorate or local legislature, is persuaded of its efficacy, and local law would encourage the creation of pension and wage funds in lieu of corporate taxes. Local or state law would also ban child labor under appropriate legal criteria. Local or state boards would intervene to arbitrate labor issues only at the request of private labor bodies or management in the event of an impasse. 

[1] Rerum Novarum, n. 45.

[2] Obviously, employees cannot justly demand "excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin..." Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, n. 72.

[3] Rerum Novarum, n. 13.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.



​The natural right to ownership and use of private property would be protected by civil law in keeping with the teaching of the Church that "private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature.... [T]he practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human existence." [1]

However, while defending private property, the Church condemns economic liberalism's fundamental claim of an "absolute" right to own and use it so long as one does not physically invade the property of others. First of all, even mere reason dictates that one may not use one's property to do evil-for example, the use of a printing press for the publication of pornography or the use of medical equipment to perform abortions. Civil authority has every right to prevent immoral uses of property that harm the common good, by confiscation if necessary. [2]

Further, as the Church has taught for 2,000 years, all the bounty of the earth, being part of divine creation, is universally destined for the common good of humanity, even if some men hold title against others to the use and ownership of property. Hence the rich have no "absolute" right to keep their goods from the poor, and the poor have a claim in justice on those goods in times of necessity. As St. Thomas Aquinas famously teaches in line with all of Tradition: "It is not theft, properly speaking to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need." [3]. The classic example of this truth is the starving man who takes a loaf of bread from a rich man's pantry. The loaf belongs to the starving man, not to the rich man-a moral truth the [libertarians of the] Austrian [school of economics] views with utter incomprehension.

The Church has proclaimed infallibly through her universal and ordinary Magisterium (constant teaching) that every human being in need "has not only a claim in charity, but a strict right to as much wealth of the community as is necessary to maintain his life. Such was the doctrine of the Early Fathers of the Church, and such has been the doctrine of all her authoritative teachers down to the present hour." [4] The Church does not mean this in the socialist sense of a compulsory distribution of wealth, which in fact she opposes, but in the sense of a moral claim-again, in justice not merely in charity-on privately owned goods by those in need of sustenance for their very lives. Msgr. John A Ryan, who was a great defender of Catholic social teaching explains:

• The teaching of Basil in the East and Ambrose in the West may be taken as representing the mind of all the Fathers [of the Church]. The former tells the rich man that the superfluous bread, shoes and clothes in his possession belong to his hungry and naked neighbors, while the latter declares that the man of wealth who gives to the poor is not bestowing an alms, but paying a debt. [5]

In the encyclical Centesimus Annus, written to commemorate Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II declared that while "Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character of the right to private property, using various arguments against the socialism of his time," he was "well aware that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal destination of the earth's goods." [6] In Centesimus John Paul forcefully reminded the faithful that the "Church teaches that the possession of material goods is not an absolute right, and that its limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right."

The right to private property not being absolute, however, its use would continue to be regulated by local laws providing for moderate and just taxation, zoning, esthetics, pollution control, abatement of nuisance, and the like. No community, county or region should have to tolerate such abuses of private ownership as the blight of vulgar advertising signs, cookie-cutter housing developments on stripped acreage, hideous structures, porn shops, nude dancing establishments, reckless discharge of toxic waste, excessive noise, and massive multinational retail operations plunking down in the midst of small towns and destroying local businesses. 

[1] Rerum Novarum, nn. 9, 11.

[2] Even the new Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges this. See, CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, paragraph 2354 ("Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.")

[3] ST, II-II, Q. 66, Art. 7.

[4] John A. Ryan, A Living Wage (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1920), p. 29.

[5] Ibid.

[6] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (1991), n. 6.

​Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 2019. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations becomes available.



Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including FSSP). 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including SSPX). 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Saint Mary Magdalen (Diocese/FSSP)
2532 Ventura Boulevard
Camarillo, California 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
​710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Time: 1:30 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church  (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 p.m.

Diocese of Orange

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.




Not only the market, but the moral order of society generally would be protected by the legal prohibition of not only theft and violence, but also such evils contrary to the common good as abortion, divorce, adultery, sodomy, public lewdness and drunkenness, drunk driving, drug abuse and prostitution, homosexual "marriage" and adoption.

Freedom of speech would be restricted according to established categories of unprotected speech, including incitement to violence, publication or distribution of pornography, lewd and indecent public speech, libel and slander. In addition, the advocacy of legalized abortion and other grave offenses against the natural and divine law would be prohibited. It is madness to maintain that one has no right to engage in false advertising, for example, but that one must have every right to advocate and persuade others to commit mass murder in the womb or other such intolerable evils.
    
A Catholic movement for true liberty, freed from the oppression of a federal government, could actually reverse the status quo of political modernity where religion is concerned. Why not restore the civil law protection and promotion of religion that was a juridical norm for more than fifteen centuries before the disastrous "age of democratic revolution," hailed by Mises and Rothbard, foisted massive, secularized central governments on once Christian peoples?

The constitutional scholar Leonard Levy notes that as of the date of the First Amendment's ratification (1791), all but two of the new states had precisely what the U.S. Constitution forbids: religious tests for public office that disqualified atheists and agnostics from exercising political authority. Some states denied the franchise to atheists, prohibited court testimony by anyone "refusing to swear or affirm the existence of God," and barred atheists from holding or conveying property in trust. In general "anyone who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity suffered civil disabilities." Profanity and blasphemy were punishable as criminal offenses in every state, and the observance of the Christian Sabbath was legally enforced. In short, "Christianity was regarded by state jurists as part and parcel of the law of the land." [1] And so it had been throughout the Western world since the Edict of Milan.

The basic scheme predominating in the colonies, and to a great extent in most of the States for some time even after ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment, reflected the logical and historically unbroken recognition that revealed religion must be the lodestar of the State, and as such must be protected and defended by law and made part of the juridical basis of public morality for the common good. As the Anglican scholar John Millbank has observed: "Once there was no secular. Instead there was the single community of Christendom with its dual aspects of sacerdotium and regnum.... The secular as a domain had to be created or imagined [Milbank's emphasis], both in theory and in practice." [2] 

True liberty means taking back the public square for Christ by abolishing the great Liberal and Libertarian fiction of a realm of the secular, including a "free" market arbitrarily deemed exempt from the liberating law of the Gospel. Without federal interference (precluded by subsidiarity), at least the localities in which Catholics constitute a majority could recreate the conditions necessary for a Christian commonwealth. Why not a truly Catholic town, or even a Catholic city or a Catholic county? 

[1] Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 74-77 & 78 n. 7.

[2] Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 9.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15, 2019. DISCLAIMER.










Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control and approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).




Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)                              
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Time: 10:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Blvd.
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Time: 1:30 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 7:00 a.m.

Saint Patrick's Roman Catholic Mission (Independent)
Northridge Women's Club
18401 Lassen Street
Northridge, CA 91325
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 7:30 p.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 p.m.

Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street 
Costa Mesa, CA 92626  
(714) 540-2214  
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Tim: 7:00 p.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Mary Church (Diocese)
1160 South Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 745-1611
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m. 

By: John P. Joy, STD

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of THE JOSIAS. It has been rep-published with permission from the Josias and with the permission of the author John P. Joy, STD. 




In view of the uproar caused by Pope Francis’ decision to alter the text of the Catechism on the death penalty, it may be helpful to pause and consider the magisterial weight or degree of teaching authority exercised by the pope in promulgating this text and the corresponding response due to this teaching on the part of the faithful. The three levels of magisterial authority are outlined in the concluding formula of the Profession of Faith as follows:

• With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
• I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
• Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. [1]

The first two paragraphs refer to the infallible teaching of the Church, which is proposed either as contained in divine revelation and so “to be believed as divinely revealed” (first paragraph) or as at least connected to divine revelation and so “definitively to be held” (second paragraph). The third paragraph refers to the authentic (that is, authoritative) but not infallible teaching of the pope or bishops.

The pope teaches infallibly only when he fulfills the requirements set forth by the First Vatican Council. [2] These requirements are essentially three, pertaining to the subject, object, and act of the teaching. [3] (1) On the part of the subject, the pope must be speaking as supreme head of the universal Church and not merely as a private person or a local bishop; (2) on the part of the object, the pope must be speaking about a matter of faith or morals; (3) and on the part of the act itself, the pope must define the doctrine by a definitive act. [4]


Magisterial Weight of the New Text of the Catechism


In the present case, there is no great difficulty in recognizing that Pope Francis was acting in an official capacity as supreme head of the Church when he approved the new text of the Catechism n. 2267 and ordered it to be inserted into all editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is intended as a teaching document for the whole Church. And there seems to be no doubt that the text in question has to do with matters of faith and morals, for the death penalty pertains in itself to morals and the teaching is proposed explicitly “in the light of the Gospel” [5] and in the context of an exposition of the Fifth Commandment. But with respect to the third requirement, there does not seem to be any evidence of the definitive mode of proclamation that is required for infallibility. The burden of proof would in any case be on anyone who wanted to assert that it does constitute an infallible definition. [6]

But just because it is not infallible does not mean that it is not authoritative. The conditions for authoritative (or authentic) papal teaching are less stringent than for infallible papal teaching. For authentic papal teaching it is enough for the pope, acting in an official capacity as pope, to propose a teaching regarding faith or morals even if not by a definitive act. The rescript, therefore, by which the new text of the Catechism on the death penalty was published on August 2, 2018, is an act of the authentic papal magisterium, which calls for a religious submission of will and intellect on the part of all the faithful. [7]


Religious Submission of Will and Intellect


The nature of this religious submission of will and intellect corresponds to the nature of the authentic but non-definitive magisterium: because the teaching is authoritative, it calls for a genuine internal assent; but because the teaching is not definitive, the nature of the assent will be provisional. In other words, it will have more the character of opinion rather than knowledge, since the doctrine is to be accepted as true, though with the awareness that it could possibly be false. [8]

However, although this religious submission is normally due to the teaching of the authentic magisterium, it may legitimately be withheld in certain cases. [9] To do so merely on the basis of one’s own private judgment would certainly be rash and dangerous, but assent must be withheld when the teaching in question openly conflicts with the public dogma or definitive doctrine of the Church. For in the case of conflicting obligations, precedence must always be given to the stricter obligation; and the obligation to give definitive assent to the irreformable doctrines of the infallible Church is a stricter obligation than the religious submission due to the non-infallible teaching of the authentic magisterium. (And it is not possible to assent simultaneously to contradictory propositions.)

The duty of religious submission to the authentic teaching of the Holy Father, therefore, is very much like the duty of children to obey their parents. Just as children have a duty to obey their parents in all things unless their parents command them to violate the law of God, so too Catholics have a duty to assent to all things taught by the authentic papal magisterium unless the pope should teach something contrary to a truth revealed by God himself or infallibly taught by the Church as pertaining to divine revelation. And just as children must obey the higher law of God even when it means disobedience to their parents, so Catholics must believe and hold the dogmas and definitive doctrines of the Church even if this means withholding assent from a given instance of authentic papal teaching.


Magisterial Weight of the Traditional Catholic Teaching


Now the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty is in principle legitimate, [10] which means that it is not intrinsically immoral. And this traditional teaching is absolutely unchangeable, for it is a dogma of divine and catholic faith. [11]

A dogma is a doctrine contained in divine revelation (Scripture or Tradition) which has been proposed as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium. [12] Now the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty is clearly taught in Scripture. For example: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6). [13[ Nor may any Catholic legitimately dispute this interpretation of Scripture, for the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are unanimous in interpreting Scripture (especially Gen 9:6 and Rom 13:4) as affirming the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty as a matter of justice. [14] And it is never permitted for any Catholic to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, as the Councils of Trent and Vatican I have declared. [15] Moreover, such a unanimous consensus is sufficient proof that the doctrine has been infallibly taught by the magisterium of the Church dispersed throughout the world.[16] Therefore, the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty as a matter of justice is a dogma of divine and catholic faith. And to doubt or deny a dogma of divine and catholic faith is heresy. [17]


What Does this mean for the New Text of the Catechism?


The new text of the Catechism n. 2267 reads as follows:

• Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
• Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
• Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [18]

In the letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the bishops regarding this new revision, Cardinal Ladaria asserts that this teaching constitutes “an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium,” [19] which can only means that it does not deny the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty. He also acknowledges that, “the political and social situation of the past [may have] made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good,” [20] which seems to suggest that this text is not intended to be understood as meaning that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. For anything that is intrinsically immoral can never be justified under any circumstances, past, present, or future. Moreover, the development of more effective prisons in modern society is cited as one of the reasons for the new teaching, which would seem to allow for the fact that the death penalty could have been justified prior to the development of better prisons, in which case, presumably, it can still be justified in less developed societies, and could be justified again if the prison systems in more developed societies deteriorate. And anything that could ever be justified cannot be intrinsically immoral.

On the other hand, to say that the death penalty is inadmissible precisely “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” is hard to understand in any other way than as an assertion of its intrinsic immorality. For surely it is always and everywhere immoral to attack the inviolability and dignity of the person. Likewise, the earlier remark of Pope Francis cited in the letter to the bishops: “The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, ‘entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.’” [21] For again, it is surely always and everywhere immoral to treat people in a manner that is cruel, inhumane, and degrading.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion, therefore, that this text suffers from serious ambiguity (inasmuch as it seems to be open to multiple interpretations) or even incoherence (inasmuch as it seems to assert contradictory propositions). In any case, however, Catholics are obliged to continue believing that the death penalty is in principle legitimate, since this is a dogma of divine and catholic faith; and because of the religious submission of will and intellect due to the authentic magisterium of the Holy Father, Catholics should also refrain from interpreting the new text of the Catechism in a manner that would contradict the traditional dogma as long as any other interpretation remains possible.
​​
[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Professio fidei (1998). 

[2] Vatican I. Pastor aeternus, cap. 4: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

[3] See The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I, trans. James T. O'Connor (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986), 45-46.

[4] Cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25: “And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Lk 22:32), by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.”

[5] New redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (2 Aug. 2018).

[6] CIC 749, §3: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

[7] Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

[8] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, de Veritate, q. 14, a. 1.

[9] This is discussed by the CDF in Donum veritatis (1990), 24–31.

[10] See, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: ‘In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord’ (Ps 101:8).”

[11] Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 4: “That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” Cf. Dei Filius, cap. 4, can. 3 “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

[12] Cf. Vatican, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture or tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

[13] See also Rom 13:1-4; Acts 5:1-11; Acts 25:11; John 19:10-11; and the many crimes for which God required the death penalty to be applied in the law of Moses.

[14] For a thorough review of the evidence of this consensus, see Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (Ignatius Press, 2017); see also Avery Card. Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things (April 2001).

[15] Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 2: “In matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.” Cf. Council of Trent, Second Decree on Scripture.

[16] Cf. Pope Pius IX, Tuas libenter; Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 3.

[17] CIC 751.

[18] New redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (2 Aug. 2018).

[19] CDF, Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty (1 Aug. 2018), 1.

[20] Ibid., 2.

[21] Ibid., 6. Citing Pope Francis, Letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty (20 March 2015): L’Osservatore Romano (20-21 March 2015), 7.