What is "the deposit of faith"?

Some Catholics have expressed to me that they like religions which allow them a fluidity of belief. Indeed, I heard a sermon last week, wherein the priest was appealing to the congregation to change their ideas concerning Church teaching. Only the Church, usually in the person of the Pope, can explain, modify or re-express the deposit of faith. That happens through the infallibility of certain documents, such as Humanae Vitae.

Explaining or modifying is not the same as a fluidity at base. This wish or desire for fluidity is a misunderstanding of the Church's depositum fidei, the deposit of faith.

One can start with the CCC, on the section concerning sacred transmission of truth. This truth is found in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":²⁹ that is, of Christ Jesus.³⁰ Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.³¹

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."³²
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";³³
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".³⁴
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."³⁵ Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."³⁶
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."³⁷ "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."³⁸
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."³⁹

^{Now, we know that the Protestants chucked out most of Tradition in favor of the solas, to which I referred in a post yesterday, but also in the past on this blog. To disregard the preaching of the apostles and keep only Scripture (and not all) impoverished the Christian Faith in the Protestant denominations. Of course, without a concern for the deposit of faith, a fluidity of doctrine and knowledge became acceptable. If someone does not like something, one can change the doctrine-such as that of marriage. More from the CCC:}

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

An example of this would be the allowance of usury.  Such major changes are not based on the doctrines given to us by Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, passed to the apostles, down directly to us today, but only changes which are not key teachings of the Church. So, for example, the teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman for life cannot be changed. 

<sup>Now, two quick points-reason, not emotions, guide the acceptance of truth in the deposit of faith. Notice how the CCC refers to both the intellect and the heart.

Secondly, the faithful who are docile and obedient hold the sensus fidei. One, in other words, cannot be disobedient to Christ's words and the long heritage of Tradition and believe one is living in truth. Again, as an example, Humanae Vitae separates those who have the supernatural appreciation of the faith and those who do not.</sup>

See also the mini-series on infallibility.


III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),⁴⁵ contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."⁴⁶
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.⁵⁰
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.⁵¹ "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."⁵²
The supernatural sense of faith
91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them⁵³ and guides them into all truth.⁵⁴
92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."⁵⁵
93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."

^{to be continued...}

Two Popular Heresies

Cardinal Manning in the book I am sharing with my readers, notes two heresies which seem to be popular today.

He points out that Alexander VIII condemned that the heathen, the heretics and the Jews do not have any influence from the graces of Christ and do not have help for their wills.

Everyone is given grace sufficient for salvation.

The second point is also a heresy condemned by Clement XI, which is that there is no grace given outside the Church.

I have heard over and over, especially in Great Britain, that people are so in ignorance that they have no culpability for not being converted.

Cardinal Manning states this; "The work, therefore, of the Holy Ghost, even in the order of nature, so to say, that is, outside of the church of God and of the revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ among the heathen--that working is universal in the soul of every individual  human being..."

I have had healthy discussions with those who honestly do not believe that God comes to each person, not once, not twice, but several times and in nature, in daily mercies.

Manning notes that every gift is a grace, that every knowledge which can lead us to God is a grace.

So, why do so many lay people deny these two truths? Here are my insights:

One, people make excuses for their own lack of zeal and lack of evangelization.

Two, people do not honestly believe in hell, or that some people who refuse graces are damned.

Three, people seem to make excuses as if every adult is a child-adults can come to know God through their reason-even children can do this.

Four, many do not believe that there is no neutrality in the spiritual world and think that there are neutral territories. Not so.

All humans who have ever lived since the Incarnation, since the Passion and Death of Christ have access to the light of faith, the truth of hope and the life of love.

To deny this is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the world.

In England, many turn against grace for these common reasons:

One, the spirit of rebellion, which takes hold of the heart and mind and declares total independence from God.

Two, the spirit of protest, or protestantism, which claims that the Church has not been true and makes excuses for turning away from the grace of union.

Three, social comfort is seen as more important than leaving all, including, perhaps, family, to follow Christ.

Four, false identification with religion and the state-or, in other words, the unwillingness to leave the Anglican Communion as it seems more "British" than Catholicism.

Five, the denial of sin and judgement-in other words, the denial of particular and final judgement.

We need grace and we are given grace.

to be continued...

The fifth and sixth medical ethics isms-Deontology and Rights Theory

Deontology departs from pragmatic philosophies of ethics. The extreme of Deontology would be those who follow Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  Deontology is all about motives. One can make a decision out of duty, but the right or wrongness of that decision is based on one's motives. 

I have been talking about this with two people this weekend. Motives are one thing and actions another. If you have read Kant, you will recognize this ism. The goodness of an action is based on good will and the badness of an action is based on bad will. Kant, however, believed in moral absolutes, but today's Deontologists do not.

Of course, a pro-lifer immediately sees the huge flaw in this approach to ethics. If a person has good reasons, and good will, the action is good.

Nope. 

Rights Theory involves these sources: 

•UN Declaration on Human Rights (1948)

•UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

•Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2001)

•UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (1995-2007)

Does a person have a right to an abortion? Does a person have a right to die? And so on....

Enough, this is like reading Screwtape Letters four times in a row...

The third and fourth medical isms-Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Consequentialism is the philosophical system which can be divided into these types:  Mohist consequentialism, also known as state consequentialism,^[4] is an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state. (wiki). This type is directly related to the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, who is mentioned in the curriculum I am looking at today.

or

...rule consequentialism holds that moral behavior involves following certain rules. However, rule consequentialism chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. Rule consequentialism exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism and rule egoism. (wiki) And, egoism here means that... Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. (wiki)

Obviously, both of these approached of consequentialism, and there are more, move far away from any Faith-based philosophy of morality.

A doctor who has a Faith-based morality in some countries and states would not be able to point out any other moral system or guide the patient to a religious based one if that is not the patient's own framework.

Pragmatism is the goal of consequentialism. The goal is merely to help the patient do something-decide on an action. 

What is ignored here, is St. Thomas Aquinas' idea of double effect from the Catholic point of view. Sadly, the med students would not be taught that important nuance that consequences. In case you forgot what that is, here is a summary, which really needs to be flushed out.

 Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

Aquinas does not actually say that intending to kill the assailant as a means to self-defense would be prohibited. The passage can be interpreted as formulating a prohibition on apportioning one's efforts with killing as the only goal guiding one's actions, which would lead one to act with greater viciousness than the goal of self-defense would allow. In contrast, Augustine had earlier maintained that killing in self-defense was not permissible, maintaining that “private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of inordinate self-love.”

Later versions of the double effect principle all emphasize the distinction between causing a morally grave harm as a side effect of pursuing a good end and causing a harm as a means of pursuing a good end. We can summarize this by noting that for certain categories of morally grave actions, for example, causing the death of a human being, the principle of double effect combines a special permission for incidentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as a side effect of one's pursuit of that end) with a general prohibition on instrumentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as part of one's means to pursue that end). The prohibition is absolute in traditional Catholic applications of the principle. Two traditional formulations appear below.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

The conditions provided by Joseph Mangan include the explicit requirement that the bad effect not be intended

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

I am amazed that there are any Catholic doctors in some nations and wonder how long it will be before America has none.

to be continued....

The second medical ism-Communitarianism

The neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain wrote against the communal ideals of the Utopianism of both communism and socialism. Sadly, he was not heeded.

In the medical profession, the ism of Communitarianism is taught. There two types of Communitarianism but both views belittle the role and identity of the individual in society.

The individual or person no longer is seen as having dignity outside the community.

In an utopian world view, the individual becomes merely a cog in the wheel for the state to use for production. The two main types of this ism are briefly described here 

• Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
• Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centrist ideology that is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and moralism or conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers. 
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

Obviously, the two merge in the undermining of the dignity of the person. And, in medical training, the question would impinge, for example on the use of fetal material for research or the taking of organs from a person not really dead by Catholic standards.

This type of ism makes the good of the whole more important than the good of the one. (Why do I sound like a Star Trek movie?).

The society, the state becomes more important than the individual.

Medical decisions are thus made on that premise. Do you want to be sacrificed for the good of the State? Enter in abortion and euthanasia.

This ism is being taught across the Western world in medical schools.

The first medical ism-Autonomy

From Prof. David Smith's course:

Definition of Autonomy:
      The right of persons to make authentic choices about what they shall do, and what shall be done to them and, as far as is possible, what should happen to them.
•is that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights;
• each one is endowed with reason and conscience;
•therefore, all should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
 (as expressed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948)

The Catholic can already see the problems of this ism-and in medicine it has the extrapolation that the patient can decide for themselves their treatment, including euthanasia where legal, or abortion, if these decisions come from the patient's own ethical system. The doctor cannot impose his or her beliefs.

Autonomy also means that the patient is entirely responsible for his own decision, which is convenient for a doctor, who then does not have to be responsible morally for death, or destruction of a fetus, for example. 

Are you feeling queasy about this approach? Good. This approach is part of the system of Principlism taught throughout the entire world.

To be continued....

Do people know the rot in medical training? The isms which form our doctors today

I have just read four classes on medical ethics from one of the Irish medical schools. You may be shocked to know that the entire medical ethics is based on relativism. Relativism is couched in terms of several approaches to ethics. These approaches are the following isms and I shall write a post on each one of these.

The first ism which underlines the medical ethics stand called Principle-ism. Principle-ism, as taught in some medical colleges, refers back to the United Nations and other modern modern systems of ethics, not based on any religious structures. I shall cover the isms one by one. This is direct information from one of the courses.

Principlism details are based on Deontology, Utilitarianism, Rights Theory, and Communitarianism. I also add the emphasis on Autonomy and Consequentialism, which I shall examine first in the next post.

It grew out of the work of Tom Beauchamp & James Childress in the U.S. – in an attempt to provide a systematic, rational approach to health care ethics that would be accepted globally.

It drew from all the major ethical systems which had been developed by philosophers historically and uses insights from them, applied to health care

Principlism is constantly developing – the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2009) contains major revisions and the addition of new material, particularly in the areas of:

 Applying and balancing principles to complex situations;

 Professionalism for the doctor – in ways to development of moral character & professional virtues / excellences;

Consideration of the status of the patient – by looking at a variety of theories of moral status. 

from  INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS & ETHICAL SYSTEMS  and MORAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTH CARE ETHICS by Prof David Smith

Also see http://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutthegc/thetenprinciples/

To be continued...