Dr.

Robert Hickson

15 November 2015
Saint Albertus Magnus (d.1280)

Father John A. Hardon's 1990 Commentaries on the Revised Draft of the

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part II)
--Epigraphs-Love is the willingness to suffer with the beloved, for the beloved, and most
painfully from the beloved. To include from our beloved Church. But, just as
we would not have wanted to have abandoned Our Lord in Gethsemane, we must
not abandon the wounded Church now in her need, in her own Passion....Would
we not have wanted to have given Him then our loyal love in His Gethsemane?
So, too, with His Church now. For, it was after He had received the Angel of
Consolation in Gethsemane that Our Lord was to sweat blood His Precious
Blood. Let us more and more contemplate with love the Passion of the Lord
and the Passion of His Church now, too. That will help us. (Father John A.
Hardon, S.J., words spoken in the early 1990s to his assistant, in one their private
conversations emphasis supplied by Father Hardon orally.)
***

This [unjust selective use and truncation of texts] may be said to be the
fundamental flaw in methodology of the 'Revised Draft.' It corresponds to the
fundamental flaw in theology, which is the ambiguity about the essence of
divine faith as a virtue of the intellect, and the act of faith as the assent of the
intellect to God's revealed truth. (Father John A. Hardon's 1990 Words of
Commentary on the Revised Draft of the Proposed Universal Catechism, as
Privately Presented to Archbishop Jan Schotte, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops
in Rome.)
***
In this second and final portion of Jesuit Father John Hardon's confidential June 1990
Commentaries to Archbishop Schotte and Father von Schnborn concerning the Revised Draft of the
proposed new Catechism of the Catholic Church, we propose to present in Father Hardon's own lucid
words his comparably deepening analysis of the Revised Draft. If our selection from pages 4-68 of
the Dossier now engages further interest, we would hope to publish the entire historic Dossier
somehow, Deo volente.
Even for those who have already read Part I of this two-part presentation, we should remember
how Father Hardon has entitled his own private Commentary:
Basic Reservations on the Revised Draft of the Catechism For The Universal
Church [sic] The Ten Basic Reservations were personally submitted to
Archbishop Jan Schotte, secretary of the Synod of Bishops, and also discussed
1

with Rev. Christoph von Schonborn [sic], editor of the Catechism for the
Universal Church. (pages 1-2)
All pagination (from pages 4-68) will continue to be placed in parentheses in the body of our
presentation of Father Hardon's Commentaries, but the bold emphasis will be this writer's added
emphasis, unless otherwise stipulated. The emphases that are underlined are Father Hardon's own way
of accent.
(Page 4) Father Hardon's own words:
At the outset, it should be stated that the Revised Draft is not a summary of Catholic
doctrine, but a compendium of Catholicism, Protestantism [Old Testament Christianity], and
theological speculation.
The Revised Draft consciously avoids anything that could be considered defensive of
Catholic teaching, and least of all polemic in its treatment of Christian doctrine.
The Revised Draft clearly states [at 0114] that the non-christian [sic] religions reveal certain
limits and errors that can disfigure the image of God and man. But its attitude towards
Protestantism is different.
Thus, the following is stated in the opening paragraphs on The Structure of this Catechism.
0011 The plan of this catechism is based in part on the great tradition of the
catechisms both of the Protestant Reformation (M. Luther, J. Calvin), and the
Catholic Reformation of the sixteenth century. The exposition is structured round
four pillars: the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Commandments, and the
Our Father.
Reading through the full text of the Revised Draft, it is clear that an ecumenical compendium
is made of both the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and the teachings of the Christian churches which
originated with Martin Luther and John Calvin. (4-5)
[After quoting at some length, and then specifically contrasting, The Roman Catechism mandated
by the Council of Trent, and showing its own structural and doctrinal plan, Father Hardon says, on p.6:]
(6-7) But who would say there is less need to protect the integrity of Catholic doctrine in the
twentieth century, than there was to safeguard revealed truth from error in the sixteenth century?
The ecumenism ushered in by the Second Vatican Council is a great blessing [sic]. But it must be
authentic ecumenism. It cannot mean compromising revealed truth which, the Council declared, is
2

possessed in its fullness only by the Catholic Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the visible
head. (7)
There are three ecumenical norms....(1.) Clear Presentation of the Whole of Catholic Doctrine....
(2) Precise and Profound Explanation of Catholic Belief....(3) Love, Charity, and Humility. (7)
What needs to be done...is to re-examine the Revised Draft and make such revisions as are
necessary in the light of the foregoing conciliar [ecumenical] norms. (8)
The Revised Draft does not deny that divine faith is the assent of the human intellect to God's
revelation. But neither is it clear and explicit in teaching this as irreversible [irreformable]
Catholic doctrine. (9)
What should be said is that this faith is characterized by obedience of the intellect; confidence
of the will in the faithfulness of God and in the truth of His word; action of our whole being
according to that word, even if it seemed humanly impossible. (9-10)
In other words, divine faith is the submission of our intellect to the authority of God who
reveals the truth. Then, building on this obedience of mind, we have trustful confidence of will in
God's fidelity to His promises. And finally we dedicate our whole being in response to what we
believe is revealed truth. (10)
This lack of clarity on the essence of faith as an assent of the intellect continues through the
rest of the section of the Revised Draft, i.e. from 0312 to 0353. (10)
What is absolutely necessary for a Catholic Catechism is first, to make clear the basic meaning of
faith. (10)
What must be made explicitly plain is that divine faith is basically the submission of our
intellect to the infinite mind of God....with the inspiration and help of God's grace [Vat. I]. (10-11)
It appears that the authors of the Revised Draft consciously avoided the full meaning of faith
as given by the First Vatican Council. (11)
This is not theological subtlety, to insist that we must first assent to revealed truth, and then
can confidently trust in God's goodness. Why? Because at the heart of historic Protestantism is the
contrary position. It claims that fiducial faith or trustful confidence in God's mercy and not
dogmatic faith, or acceptance by the intellect of God's revealed truth, is the bedrock of
3

Christianity. (12)
Because the Revised Draft [0329-0330] is ambiguous on the essence of faith, its treatment of
growth in faith and dangers to the faith is less than satisfactory. (12)
[For example,] To grow in faith means six thing[s]. All of them require divine grace and our
cooperation with the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. (12) and Father Hardon then gives his six
recommendations, also to explain the dangers to the faith and how to preserve our Catholic faith. (13)
The concluding summary [of the Section of Faith, 0346-0353] In Brief, finally gives a more
precise description of faith. It uses words like recognize as true, corresponding to reality, and says
that Faith is a supernatural gift which implants in the human intelligence. The trouble is that for
most of the preceding pages, the essential meaning of faith as the assent of the intellect to God's
revelation is less than clear. (15)
The Revised Draft is not forthrightly clear on the papal primacy. It is correspondingly not
clear on the role of the Roman Pontiff in the Church's extraordinary magisterium [as in Pius XII's 1950
declaration of Mary's Glorious Assumption]. And it is least clear on, and has avoided direct
treatment of, the Church's ordinary universal magisterium, whose infallibility depends on the
papal primacy. (16)
[As to what must, in justice, be called ambiguity about the papal primacy (16)]: Nowhere is
the authority of the Bishop of Rome clearly and explicitly declared to be a primacy of jurisdiction,
not only over the Church at large, but also specifically over the bishops. (17)
[Even]... the clear teaching of Lumen Gentium [LG 22] on this critical issue is, to say the least,
obscured. (17)
What is omitted from the foregoing paragraphs [LG 22] is the explicit teaching of Lumen
Gentium that papal authority is also a primacy of jurisdiction over the bishops.(18)
The authors of the Revised Draft have done three things: (1) They have inverted the sequence
of statements from Lumen Gentium. (2) They have selectively chosen certain statements and omitted
others. (3) They have omitted the statements in which it [Lumen Gentium] explicitly declares that the
papal primacy is also over the college of bishops. It will be instructive to quote the full context in
Lumen Gentium from which the preceding [tendentiously selective and omitted] quotations are taken.
4

(18)
INFALLIBILITY OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM: Not surprisingly the
Revised Draft associates infallibility first with the bishops and, then, by way of addendum, also
with the Roman Pontiff. Again, it is worth quoting first from the Revised Draft, which quotes from
Lumen Gentium, and then the full text in Lumen Gentium. (20)
Given the magnitude of the subject, it is inconceivable that so little is said about infallibility. It
is even more astounding, although predictable, that infallibility should be explained in such a way
that it seems to reside essentially in the bishops and only consequentially in the Roman Pontiff.
(20)
Like its treatment of the papal primacy, so here too the Revised Draft has taken great liberty
[even] in its quotations from Lumen Gentium [LG 25, from the Second Vatican Council]. (21)
Lumen Gentium [LG 25] then goes on to speak about the ordinary universal magisterium,
about which the Revised Draft says not a word....The full statement of Lumen Gentium, most of
which is omitted in the Revised Draft, is indispensable for a correct Catholic understanding of
papal infallibility and the Church's extraordinary magisterium. (22)
Having deleted most of what Lumen Gentium [LG 25] says about the Church's extraordinary
magisterium, it is no wonder the Revised Draft is simply silent about the infallibility of the
ordinary universal magisterium. (23-24)
INFALLIBLE ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM:
As already noted, the authors of the Revised Draft do indeed speak of the infallibility of the
apostolic magisterium. But this minuscule statement not only fails to explain the infallibility of the
ordinary universal magisterium, it ignores such infallibility with devastating consequences to a
large part of the Church's irreversible teaching, especially in the vast area of personal and social
morality. (24)
Most of the dissenters from the Church's teachings in the twentieth century have rejected the
infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. Every single moral law governing the fifth, sixth and
ninth commandments has been called into question. Contraception and abortion, fornication and
adultery, masturbation and homosexuality are being defended by nominally Catholic writers and
5

educators. Why? Because it is claimed that the Church has never spoken infallibly on these matters.
(24)
The Revised Draft of the proposed Universal Catechism supports this view by its silence on
the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. [Even] The Second Vatican Council's teaching
on this crucial matter [in Lumen Gentium 25] is by-passed as though it did not exist. (24)
[Moreover,] The Church has the divine right to defend the unchangeable natural [moral] law, as
Pope Paul VI declared in Humanae Vitae. It is irrelevant that so much of this doctrine has never been
taught by the Church's extraordinary magisterium. It has been taught infallibly by the Church's
ordinary universal magisterium. Yet the Revised Draft has chosen to ignore this indispensable
truth of the Catholic faith. One plausible reason for this omission is to avoid taking a definite
stand on such allegedly controversial matters as contraception and extramarital sexual relations. (2526)
[Reservation Four:]
The subject of revelation is explained early in the Revised Draft. Chapter Two (pages 14 to 26)
is entitled God Meets Man and has three articles, namely: The Revelation of God; The Transmission
of Divine Revelation; and Holy Scripture. Within this section, Tradition is treated in Article 2
under the Transmission of Divine Revelation.....But both the explanation of Tradition and its
relation to Scripture are seriously defective. (27)
Meaning of Tradition. The Second Vatican Council regularly speaks of Sacred Tradition and
Sacred Scripture (Sacra Traditio et Sacra Scriptura), in that order, and all four words are capitalized.
The Revised Draft avoids any quotation from Dei Verbum [of Vaticanum II] in which these two
sources of revelation are thus juxtaposed and regularly speaks of Holy Scripture of Sacred
Scripture, but never once uses the term Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition. In fact, the very title
of one of the sub-sections is Tradition and Holy Scripture. (27)
The problem for the authors of the Revised Draft is that they fail to clearly correlate, as
Verbum Dei [i.e. , Dei Verbum] does, the two sources of revelation. They are preoccupied with
emphasizing that revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture. Their preoccupation is understandable in
view of the unqualified teaching of the Protestant Reformers that the Bible alone (sola scriptura)
contains the whole of God's revelation to the human race. (27-28)
6

The Council [Vatican II itself, in its Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum] affirms that Tradition
contributed to the formation of Scripture; that Tradition continued in apostolic tradition under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and that the certitude of divine faith derives not only from
Scripture but also from Tradition. But the Revised Draft presumes to say what neither the
Council of Trent, nor the First Vatican Council, nor the Second Vatican Council teaches. (28)
Among these three [above-proposed] answers as to how Tradition and Scripture are related,
the second one, that they have One and the same content, is unwarranted by any teaching of
the Church's magisterium and would, moreover, be a devastating compromise of historic
Catholicism. (29)
The thrust of the Revised Draft is in the direction of the tradition of the Protestant
Reformation. Nothing could be plainer from the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin than that
God's revelation is all contained in the Bible. Luther and Calvin would agree that whatever the
Catholic Church means by Sacred Tradition, it has one and the same content as Sacred Scripture.
(29)
Thus, the opening article of belief in John Calvin's Geneva catechism, published in 1536,
declares: First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion (Article
1). (30)
Building on this premise, one after another of the doctrines of the Catholic Church are
denied because they were devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God which is found
exclusively in the Bible.
Therefore, contrary to the tradition of the Roman Church which claims that the sacraments
actually confer [produce] the grace they signify, [the Calvinist Catechism and doctrinal opinion is then
quoted]....
Therefore, contrary to the tradition of the Roman Church, no transubstantiation takes place in
the Lord's Supper. And the Mass of the Romanists is to be rejected....
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Roman Church that there is a source of revelation
parallel with Sacred Scripture, this alleged Sacred Tradition does not even deserve to be called human
traditions.....
7

 Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Roman Church that Sacred Tradition reveals Christ's
institution of an ordained episcopate and priesthood,....
There was more than academic value in quoting at length from the Geneva Catechism of John
Calvin. It should at least show the risk of compromising Catholic belief which the authors of the
Revised Draft are taking when they say
that the plan of the Universal Catechism is based on the catechisms of the Protestant
Reformation
that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture have one and the same content. On this basis,
some of the cardinal truths of Christianity which depend on revealed Tradition would be
removed (as they were by the Protestant Reformers) from the deposit of divine faith. (30-33)
There is one [only one!] reference in the Revised Draft [paragraph 2053] to the sacraments
conferring grace ex opere operato. It occurs in a lengthy explanation of the epiclesis or invocation of
the Holy Spirit to transform the gifts of bread and wine into Christ during the celebration of the
Mass.....The foregoing passages [paragraphs 2052 and 2053] raise a number of serious problems:
The amount of attention given to the epiclesis reflects the ecumenical stress of the
Revised Draft. Among the Eastern Orthodox, for example, many would say that the epiclesis, or
invocation of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the consecration to take place at Mass. Yet, we have the
teaching of the Council of Florence to the contrary [on 22 November 1439, in Exsultate Deo]:
The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the words of the Savior with which
He effected this sacrament; for the priest effects this sacrament by speaking in the
name of Christ. It is by the power of these words that the substance of bread is
changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine is changed into His
blood (Exsultate Deo, November 22, 1439 ). (34-35)
Later on, the Revised Draft does say [in paragraph 2432] that the words of consecration...make
sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine his body and Blood. However, the
necessity of the preceding epiclesis is left open. It should not be left open. The epiclesis is not
essential for Eucharistic consecration. (35)
The explanation in the Revised Draft of ex opere operato is misleading in several ways:
The Latin expression is not, as the authors claim, a mere theological saying.
It is a defined doctrine of the Council of Trent (Decretum de Sacramentis,
8

March 3, 1547).
The reason for the Church's teaching was not, as the Revised Draft says,
merely to show that the sacraments work...by the power of Christ acting in and
through them. No, the Council of Trent was declaring Catholic doctrine on
the causality of the sacraments and thereby defending a revealed truth that
was (and is) denied by all Protestants. Thus, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession
condemns those who hold that sacraments work justification ex opere operato
(June 25, 1530). (35-36)
To this day, no Protestant Catechism or confession of faith accepts the
Catholic definition of a sacrament as a visible rite instituted by Christ which
confers [produces] ex opere operato the grace which the rite signifies. (36)
Referring to St. Thomas in this context is irrelevant. Aquinas lived 300 years
before the rise of Protestantism, one of whose cardinal principles is the denial
of the causality of the sacraments ex opere operato. (36)
There is a studied preoccupation in the Revised Draft with celebrating
the sacraments. The Authors of the proposed Universal Catechism have so
exploited the celebration of the sacraments that the efficacy of the sacraments
as sources of grace has been minimized to an extreme. This is consistent with
the ecumenical focus of the Revised Draft, since Protestantism does not
believe that the sacraments actually confer the grace they signify. (36)
GRACE THROUGH THE REAL PRESENCE IGNORED
The most glaring defect of the Revised Draft regarding sacramental efficacy is the one short
paragraph [paragraph 2462] on the worship of the Blessed Sacrament....This is the only reference to
the worship of the Blessed Sacrament, exactly 104 words in the total of some ten thousand words on
the Eucharist [paragraphs 2401 through 2497]. What is most serious about this minimalization is
the fact that it ignores the communication of grace by the Holy Eucharist as the Real Presence.
(37)
What follows [on pages 38 through 43 on the Commentary] is a recommended addition to the
proposed catechism. (37)....THE REAL PRESENCE Adoration and Channel of Grace (38)....
Toward the end of the eleventh century, we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic
adoration. A certain Berengarius (999-1088) publicly denied that Christ was really present under the
species of bread and wine. The matter became so serious that in 1059 Pope St. Gregory VII ordered
Berengarius to sign an act of faith in the Real Presence. Nine hundred years later, during the Second
Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI published Mysterium Fidei [promulgated on 3 September 1965], and
9

quoted Pope Gregory's profession verbatim. (39-40)....

What Pope Paul VI emphasized was not only that Christ reserved in the Holy Eucharist should
be adored by the faithful. The Savior is now living in our midst in order to communicate His grace.
(40)....
The reason is that the Eucharist is the Incarnate Son of God who became, and remains the
Son of Mary....[O]n the Eucharist as a channel of grace, Pope Paul VI distinguishes between the
Eucharist as Sacrifice and Communion, and the Eucharist as Presence.... He dwells with us full of
grace and truth. He restores morality, nourishes virtues, consoles the afflicted and strengthens the
weak. [Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei]
These verbs restores, nourishes, consoles and strengthens are all forms of divine grace
which Christ confers by His presence in the Eucharist.(41)....
On the efficacy of the Real Presence, Paul VI adds a final touch to his teaching....But there must
be a responsive faith on our part. (41-42)
Anyone who approaches this august Sacrament with special devotion, and
endeavors to return generous love for Christ's own infinite love, will experience
and fully understand...how great is the converse with Christ. For there is nothing
more consoling on earth, nothing more efficacious for advancing along the road of
holiness (Paul VI). (42)
T h e important word in the last sentence is efficacious. Provided we approach the Real
Presence with believing love, Christ will perform wonders of His grace in our lives. (42)
GRACE through the HUMANITY OF CHRIST. The underlying truth of faith in the Church's
Eucharistic teaching is the fact of Christ's consoling presence in the Blessed Sacrament.....It is a
sacrament, or better, it is the one sacrament which not only confers grace but contains the very
source of grace, namely Jesus Christ. (42)....
Jesus spoke with human lips when He preached the Sermon of the Mount....It is the same now
glorified humanity who is present in the Eucharist. In order to draw on these resources of divine
wisdom and power available in the Eucharist, we must have faith. (43)
That Latin phrase ex opere operto is no mere theological saying. It is not only an article of
defined Catholic truth. It is a verifiable fact of experience provided by the Real Presence, for
those who believe. (43)
10

MISTAKEN AND MISLEADING IDEAS ON CONFESSION (44)

While most of what the Revised Draft says about the Sacrament of Penance is excellent,
several items are historically doubtful and doctrinally misleading [paragraph 2531]. The reason in
both cases is a lack of clarity about the built-in efficacy of the sacraments to confer their divinely
assured sacramental grace. (44)....
According to the Revised Draft [paragraph 2531], the Church's discipline has changed
drastically over the centuries. (44)....
Certainly, there was public penance in the early Church. And no doubt many bishops demanded
years of such penance from grave sinners. However [for example] We have the testimony of Pope
St. Leo I (459 A.D.) referred to before. According to the Pope, the rule from apostolic times was that a
penitent could receive absolution after a secret and private confession to a priest. (44-45)....
Church historians themselves are divided on the subject [of rigorism in protracted penance
and long-delayed absolution or even refusing absolution altogether]. Those who understand the
Catholic Church's teaching on the sacrament of penance say the evidence is not conclusive, even on
the prevalence of penitential rigorism, quite apart from its formal approval by Rome. (46)
[Additionally, the Revised Draft claims:] Towards the end of the sixth century...Irish
missionaries brought to continental Europe the practice of private penance....From then on the
sacrament was performed in a more secret manner between the penitent and the priest [paragraph
2531]. (46)
The same adverse judgment as before must be made about this foregoing [and apodictic]
statement. It is not historically provable and, indeed, is factually refutable. (46)
Those who deny that Christ Himself instituted the sacrament of penance regularly appeal to
these facts about the penitential rigor of the first five centuries. They argue that the merciful Christ
could not have instituted an alleged sacrament which for so many centuries debarred sinners up
to a lifetime from reconciliation with God. (47)
Reservation 6: The Revised Draft in effect accepts the erroneous theory of the Fundamental
Option. [Namely,] Only persons who have made the fundamental option to reject God are said to be
liable to eternal punishment. Thus, the meaning of mortal sin is not that of the Church's ordinary
11

universal magisterium. (48)

This may seem like a hard judgment on the authors of the proposed catechism. They certainly
teach the eternity of hell. They also explain, in their treatment of sin, the essential difference between
mortal and venial sin. But there are questions which the authors raise, which may legitimately raise a
doubt about their position on the theory of the Fundamental Option [paragraph 3077]. (48)....
On all these counts [the examples given above], the Revised Draft identifies mortal sin [i.e.,
peccatum ad mortem (1 John 5:16-17)] as do the fundamental optionists. For them, a mortal sin is
NOT the fully deliberate commission of a serious offense against God. It is precisely what the
authors of the proposed catechism call a mortal sin. The vocabulary of fundamental optionists is
studded with such terms as remaining obstinately in sin...hardening of the heart in mortal [thus
serious] sin...rejecting the merciful love of God...proud rejection of God's mercy.(50)
What the revised Draft has done is identified mortal sin as the sin against the Holy
Spirit. All other sins, on these terms, no matter how grave or obstinate are NOT mortal sins.
They are, in the language of Fundamental Option, merely grave sins. (50)
Reservation 7: The Revised Draft does not use the Vulgate text of the Bible. This is contrary to
the Church's magisterial history over the centuries. (51)
There are two serious consequences to avoiding the Vulgate text of Sacred Scripture. Both affect
the soundness of the doctrine which the proposed Universal Catechism is to give the faithful. (51)
By not using the Vulgate, the Revised Draft, in effect, proposes its own substitute text of
Sacred Scripture. This is exactly what happened in the sixteenth century with the rise of
Protestantism. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Zwingli produced not only their own translation but
their own choice of manuscripts on which to build their new form of Christianity. (51)
By not using the Vulgate, the Revised Draft cuts itself off from the biblical tradition of
the Catholic Church. The Church's magisterium from the Council of Trent to the Second Vatican
Council has built its teaching on the Vulgate text of Sacred Scripture. In departing from this biblical
foundation, the proposed Universal Catechism would, in the words of Christ, be building on sand. (51)
If there is anything unstable and constantly shifting, it is the confusion of variants among
the texts of the Bible now offered to the public. To buy into this instability would be calamitous.
12

It would literally destabilize the faith among believing Catholics. (51)....

All the original founders of Protestantism acknowledge that the Bible is the only source of the
Christian religion. But they also claimed that to understand it, it is sufficient to rely on one's own
private judgment. (51)
This meant not only one's private judgment in interpreting the meaning of Scripture. It also meant
one's private judgment in choosing manuscripts of the Bible and in translating the chosen texts from the
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts chosen.(51)
In other words, private interpretation of the Bible means private manuscript selection,
private translation, and private explanation of the translated manuscripts. (51)
The history of Protestantism is the history of a medley of private interpretations of the Bible,
which by now is somewhere at variance with every basic doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Perhaps
without realizing it, the authors of the Revised Draft have opened the door to massive confusion by
their removal of the Vulgate text of the Sacred Scriptures. (51)....
[In addition to some anathemas and other clarifying declarations of the Council of Trent (8 April
1546), the declarations of the First Vatican Council (24 April 1870) and of Pope Pius XII's Divino
Afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943), we have the fact that]
Finally the Second Vatican Council, whose sixteen documents have several hundred citations
from Sacred Scripture, uniformly used the Latin Vulgate text of the Bible. (54)
Whatever the reasons for not using the Vulgate in the proposed Universal Catechism, they
have no grounds in the Catholic Church's history and teaching. (54)
Moreover, [in addition to a Severance from Catholic Biblical Tradition (52)], the constant
dependence on the Revised Draft on the conciliar documents of Vatican II would be negativized in
practice. How seriously could anyone take the Second Vatican Council if the proposed catechism
eliminated the very text of Sacred Scripture on which so much of the Council's teachings depend?
(54)
Reservation 8: The Revised Draft does not adequately explain the whole matter of
development of doctrine....[as is inchoate in Vatican II's Dei Verbum 8]. (55)....
A clear explanation of what development means is critically important in modern times....The
13

problem is that so many dissenters who still call themselves Catholic have pre-empted the idea of
progress. They appeal to a development that rejects the unchangeable teaching of the Church
on faith and morals. (56)
Part of the problem for the authors of the Revised Draft is that their underlying concept of
faith is not clearly and essentially an assent of the intellect to God's revelation. This colors
everything which the proposed catechism touches. In this case, what practical meaning can
development of doctrine have unless Catholic Christianity is the doctrinal society, empowered by
Christ to preserve and promote the teaching of irreversible truths? (56-57)
It is not coincidental, therefore, that the Revised Draft is so cavalier in speaking of doctrinal
formulations. Thus we are told [in paragraphs 0331 and 0332, respectively] that,
We do not believe in formulae but in living realities referred to by the formulae which faith
allows us to 'touch' (cf. Luke 8:46-48).
Faith cannot be reduced to the repetition of formulae, but it needs formulae so that the
revealed data can be transmitted and celebrated in community. (57)
Many of the so-called formulae are irreversible doctrines of the Church. They are infallible
either because solemnly defined or taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. To say We do not
believe in formulae is out of order, to say the least, in a proposed catechism which does not
clearly spell out the essence of divine faith as a virtue of the intellect. (57)
Reservation 9: The Revised Draft leaves open for speculation most of the Church's
irreversible teaching on Christian morality. (58)
This is the most serious indictment on the Revised Draft. (58)
The indictment is justified mainly because the authors of the proposed catechism have evaded
teaching the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium. (58)....
Throughout the present analysis of the proposed Universal Catechism it has been pointed out how
the Revised Draft fails to take serious account of the irreversible character of the Church's
universal ordinary magisterium. The principal contents of this magisterium are the moral teaching
of the Roman Catholic Church from apostolic times to the present day. (58)
Moreover, the main part of this teaching concerns sexual morality. This is not surprising,
14

since marriage and the proper use of the procreative faculties have always been central to the
human condition. Since the time of Christ, His teaching on marriage and chastity both marital
and extra-marital has been the glory of Catholic Christianity and a stumbling block for those
who found His teaching idealistic or even divisive among Christians. (58-59)
Within this moral teaching of the Catholic Church, her position on the sinfulness of contraception
has been clear and consistent since the first century of the Christian era. (59)....
The real conflict is between those who insist that the Church's doctrine in sexual matters is
non-infallible, and the factual reality, that it is infallible, and therefore irreversible because it has
been the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. So many advisors of the
bishops' conference denied [especially in and around 1968] the infallibility of the Ordinary
Universal Magisterium [especially in Pope Paul's 1968 Humanae Vitae, for example]....(59)....
Although Humanae Vitae dealt mainly with contraception, the implications of its doctrine cover
the whole range of human morality. Consequently, if the teaching of Humanae Vitae can be reduced
to a non-infallible status [see, as well, 60], then everything in the moral order that has been
constantly taught by the Church's magisterium over the centuries can be called into question. Popes
can exhort or encourage the faithful to obey, but (on these premises) they cannot demand obedience in
the name of God. (59-60)
The aftermath of Humanae Vitae [promulgated 25 July 1968] is a clear proof of the foregoing.
Literally the whole of natural and revealed morality is now [in 1990] being debated in nominally
Catholic circles, as though issues like contraception and homosexuality, fornication, adultery and
auto-eroticism were not forbidden by divine law. One further result is that even the crime of
abortion is being defended by influential persons who claim to be Catholic. (60)....
This dissenting position of so many [episcopal] hierarchies [from Humanae Vitae] has
produced massive confusion in the minds of millions of the faithful. It is therefore imperative that
the proposed Universal Catechism not evade the [root] issue as the Revised Draft is trying to
do.....The root cause [of the error] is the failure to understand clearly and correctly the infallibility
of the Church's ordinary universal magisterium. (61)....
Meaning of Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Any doctrine on faith or morals which has been
taught by the whole hierarchical church in union with the bishop of Rome, always and everywhere as
15

gravely binding on everyone of the faithful belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium. (62)
The operative terms in this description are four:...and therefore, a universality of episcopal
authority a continuous universality of time a universality of place and a universality of
the subject of obligation. All professed members of the Church are required to accept and follow what
is thus taught. (62-63)....
The projected Universal Catechism has no choice. It must explain this teaching [on the
infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium] to the faithful. To avoid such teaching would be
to perpetuate the acceptance of a grave moral error that is literally rocking the Catholic Church
to her foundations. (64)
Responsibility of the Universal Catechism
The authors of the Revised Draft have done more than evaded their duty to instruct the
faithful on the grave sinfulness of contraception. Their failure to explain clearly the infallibility of the
universal ordinary magisterium has left open much of the Church's moral teaching, including sexual
morality, both within and outside of marriage..
Most of this teaching has not been declared by the extraordinary magisterium. Yet, the Church
teaches infallibly not only extraordinarily, but also ordinarily, as we have seen. Silence on the
infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium would be devastating, not only for the moral
well-being of the Catholic Church, but for the future of true ecumenism [? sic], which the
projected catechism is at such pains to promote [sic]. (64)
Reservation 10: The Revised Draft does not do justice to the teaching of the [Pastoral] Second
Vatican Council. This failure is shown especially in the selective use of the conciliar texts. (65)
This [unjust, selective use] may be said to be the fundamental flaw in the methodology of the
Revised Draft. It corresponds to the fundamental flaw in theology, which is its ambiguity about
the essence of divine faith as a virtue of the intellect, and the act of faith as the assent of the
intellect to God's revealed truth. (65)....
Papal Ex Cathedra Infallibility (66)....
The proposed catechism removes all the parts of Lumen Gentium 25 which are necessary to
understand that [such solemn ] papal definitions
16

 are irreformable by their very nature, and not by reason of the assent of the
Church
are in no way in need of the approval of others
do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal
Such omission [of Lumen Gentium 25 by the Revised Draft] leaves unclear what has vexed
the Catholic Church for centuries, namely the supremacy of definitive papal teaching, with no
dependence on episcopal approval, as claimed by Conciliarism and Gallicanism. (66)
Infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Having truncated Lumen Gentium on the
Pope's supremacy in defining infallibly, the projected catechism simply omits what Lumen
Gentium 25 teaches about the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. (66)....
By omitting to explain the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium, the Revised
Draft leaves open all the consequences of contraception [See Humanae Vitae 17 conjugal
infidelity and the general lowering of morality et al.]. (67)....
With the spread of contraception, the logical result was abortion.
The Revised Draft correctly condemns artificial contraception and direct abortion. But that is
not enough. The contrary [moral] teaching of the Church has to be declared irreversible. Why?
Because of the infallibility of the Church's ordinary universal magisterium. --Finis-Some Implications of Father Hardon's Commentaries and Fittingly Added Conclusions
Before he was to submit his frank commentary to Archbishop Schotte, Father Hardon reflected
deeply and always prayerfully on all these substantively doctrinal and methodological matters and
tendentious omissions and usually he was on his knees in front of the Blessed Sacrament in the
Tabernacle in the Jesuit Community at the University of Detroit. For, he often read his texts and even
wrote his book-manuscripts before the Tabernacle wherever he was, even as a visitor.
From what he shared with me in person, or by phone, I know that he had much sorrow in his heart
concerning this proposed new Catechism. After having read most of his commentary on the Revised
Draft, a reader should now be able more fully to understand what Father Hardon meant when he
poignantly and solemnly said to me: We are witnessing a massive effort to re-make our historic
Faith.
Those who have the time and patience may now consider the extent to which Father Hardon's
corrective comments and constructive recommendations were incorporated in the first vernacular
17

promulgation of the new Catechism (in French in 1992), and then in the later vernacular editions, as
well as the final, official Latin edition promulgated by John Paul II in 1997.
There are other comments that Father Hardon made to me which he decided not to put in writing.
However, he may have said such things in person to Father von Schnborn and especially to
Archbishop Schotte. Father Hardon was especially attentive to the full Catholic Doctrine of Grace and
thus also alert to a proper use of the Language of Grace, as well as to its distortions and omissions. He
was also aware of the subtle forms of Naturalism and Nominalism.
If one reads again the cumulative sequence of his Commentary, one will better see the
troublesome patterns he saw developing, as well as the inner logic of certain false premises. He often
said to me Starting points and first moves are important, as is likewise the case in athletics and our
sticking points are important, too!
Although, as a faithful Jesuit with a Fourth Vow, Father Hardon was very careful not to criticize
the Pope especially not a reigning Pontiff but his prayers for them were very specific (and I knew
a few of them). More than once, when faced with certain disturbing Papal facts, he would say to me,
for example: Robert, we are touching here upon a mystery. (Those who knew Father Hardon
personally, can you not hear him saying such words, and even imitate his voice?!)
May there be comparably virtuous priests today to comment faithfully and with loyal love
on some of the things now developing in a purportedly decentralizing and culturally sensitive
Synodal Church. For, the Dialectical Revolution on the Nature and Doctrinal Boundaries of the
Church De Ecclesia, Suo Magisterio appears to be advancing, directly and indirectly by the
fast path and the slow path. And Father Hardon already saw such things in a more inchoate form.
May Father Hardon's courageous Catholic Witness be more widely and gratefully known. May he
further inspire all of us to live up to the example he gave us, in light of the Graces he received and so
generously co-operated with: Promptus ad Bonum.
Father Hardon often said: What we have is Nature, what we need is Grace! And more and more
Grace. For, he always accented the comparative adjectives or adverbs, such as the word more as
in to give more, to forgive more, to love more, to pray more, to endure more, to suffer more.
Sanctity, he carefully added, may thus be summed up in this word more.

18

Even when Father Hardon spoke of his own Jesuit Motto Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam he
always accented the comparative adjective Maiorem: unto the Greater Glory of God. For with the
comparative in mind, he said, one may not and cannot so easily become complacent or slothful or
dubiously self-satisfied.
Promptus ad Melius, Promptus ad Maius sub Gratia: such was the generous and candid man
I gratefully knew over the years: Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J. (18 July1914-30 December 2000).

--Finis--

19

2015 Robert Hickson