YOUCAT and contraception

UPDATE: Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, further states:

As you might expect, I am beginning to get media inquiries. What I know about the situation allows me to put things fairly concisely:

1. The English translation of YOUCAT, published by Ignatius Press, does not, of course, endorse contraception but clearly affirms the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

2. The German text upon which we based our translation does not endorse contraception but clearly affirms the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

3. I don't know why the Italian translation reads as it does nor do I know how it came about that it reads as it does, but it should be fixed to reflect, without ambiguity, the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

4. It is my understanding that the Italian text is being fixed

Original post: Catholic News Agency has reported that the Italian edition of YOUCAT (Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church) suggests that "contraceptive methods" can be used by Catholic couples in regulating the size of families. The report says, "Vatican sources who spoke to CNA April 11 on the condition of anonymity speculated that the problem was in the original German text, a fact that was later confirmed by CNA." (UPDATE: Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press writes: "The problem did not originate with the German text--at least not if the Italian translation is based on the same German text as that on which Ignatius Press based its translation. The German text of question 420 asks whether a Christian married couple may regulate the number of children they have. It does not ask whether the couple may use methods of contraception.")

It further reports: "The English edition, published by Ignatius Press, does not contain the problematic language. It is not yet known if other language versions also contain the same controversial statement on contraception."

Below are paragraphs 420 and 421 from the English translation of YOUCAT, published by Ignatius Press:

420 May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?

Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. [2368–2369, 2399]

Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big, almost superhuman challenge for the couple. Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe: Regulating births, in the first place, must not mean that the couple is avoiding conception as a matter of principle. Second, it must not mean avoiding children for selfish reasons. Third, it must not mean that external coercion is involved (if, for example, the State were to decide how many children a couple could have). Fourth, it must not mean that any and every means may be used.

421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?

The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]

The Church pays careful attention to the order of nature and sees in it a deep meaning. For her it is therefore not a matter of indifference whether a couple manipulates the woman’s fertility or instead makes use of the natural alternation of fertile and infertile days. It is no accident that Natural Family Planning is called natural: it is ecological, holistic, healthy, and an exercise in partnership. On the other hand, the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception—namely, chemical methods (“the Pill”), mechanical methods (for example, condom, intra-uterine device, or IUD), and surgical methods (sterilization)—since these attempt to separate the sexual act from its procreative potential and block the total self-giving of husband and wife. Such methods can even endanger the woman’s health, have an abortifacient effect (= cause a very early abortion), and in the long run be detrimental to the couple’s love life.

The same page includes this quote, in the margin, from Pope John Paul II:

Pope John Paul II describes “contraception” (as opposed to “the regulation of births”) as follows: ”When couples [have] recourse to contraception … they manipulate and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of total self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.” Pope John Paul II (1920–2005), Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 32

Click here for more information (including a link to sample page) about YOUCAT.

Comments

[William]

Once again, traduttore, tradittore.

[Mark Brumley]

The problem did not originate with the German text--at least not if the Italian translation is based on the same German text as that on which Ignatius Press based its translation. The German text of question 420 asks whether a Christian married couple may regulate the number of children they have. It does not ask whether the couple may use methods of contraception.

[Jeffrey Pinyan]

So what was "verified" by CNA, then? Did they see a different German text, or misunderstand the German text they saw?

[Joe]

Can someone explain exactly where the confusion does or does not lie? From the extended answer, the teaching seems clear. Only if you read the first sentences alone could you misconstrue. Is CNA trying to mislead, or what gives? I don't get it at all.

[Ed Peters]

Does IP ever get tired of being the only major house that always gets its text right? It must be frustrating. Hang in there, guys.

[Charles]

If true the Italian version should be recalled. This is a Catechism for the generation that were unfortunately taken out of sunday school by their bittered parents, to whom moral relativism is one of the world's few universal truths, taught sex education by Planned Parenthood affiliates, and given condoms with the purchase of their college textbooks, but will hopefully be the foot soldiers of the new evangelization. It's important in developing their conscious and preparing this catalog of Catholic belief and wisdom that we express the teachings of the Church clearly and consistently less they end up as lukewarm as their parents and grandparents.

[Austine Crasta]

The YOUCAT error is serious for several reasons:

1. It is a Catechetical Text adopted as the official Youth Catechism for the World Youth Day.

2. The original German text bears the approvals of Austrian Bishops’ Conference, German Bishops’ Conference, Swiss Bishops’ Conference, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Congregation for the Clergy, and the Pontifical Council of the Laity (wrongly printed as Pontifical "Congregration" for the Laity).

3. The foreword for the book has been written by the Pope himself.

If as CNA says it 'verified', the problem was present in the German text itself [ignore questions 1-4 if the German text was error free], we may ask:

1. Did this error occur in the initial drafting stages or in the post-approval printing stages?

2. If the former, how could the drafters and overseers of this catechism have made such a serious mistake as regards such a well-known Church teaching?

3. How could such a mistake have passed the review of the three German speaking episcopal conferences and the some of the top Vatican bodies?

4. It certainly couldn't have passed the notice of the various language translators. How then did it go unreported?

5. Were translators chosen for this catechetical text without giving sufficient consideration to their theological background?'

6. Do all the other language editions of YOUCAT have the necessary approval for their translations in accordance with canons 827 §1 and 829 of the Code of Canon Law?

7. Considering that the WYD organizers alone have ordered more than 700,000 copies, who bears the publishing losses for this error?

Considering that the text quoted above gives room for ambiguity, YOUCAT ought to be closely checked for any other ambiguous occurences that may have crept in inadvertently, hopefully not deliberately.

Inspite of having a good answer, Question no. 421 formulated thus, "Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?", suggests that it is okay to see NFP as a method of preventing conception whereas the Church sees it as a method of spacing/regulating births while at the same time being always open to life. (CCC 2370)

Further NFP and other methods of artificial contraception appear to be only relatively good or evil in the formulation of the question. On the contrary, the Pontifical Council for the Family's 'Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life', clearly says that NFP is "PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT from any contraceptive practice". (Sec 2, 2.6)

If necessary, the text/translations should be temporarily withdrawn for a thorough doctrinal review and then released in time for the upcoming WYD.

[Mark Brumley]

As you might expect, I am beginning to get media inquiries. What I know about the situation allows me to put things fairly concisely:

1. The English translation of YOUCAT, published by Ignatius Press, does not, of course, endorse contraception but clearly affirms the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

2. The German text upon which we based our translation does not endorse contraception but clearly affirms the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

3. I don't know why the Italian translation reads as it does nor do I know how it came about that it reads as it does, but it should be fixed to reflect, without ambiguity, the Church's teaching that contraception is evil

4. It is my understanding that the Italian text is being fixed

[Mark Brumley]

Also, the CNA headline reads: "World Youth Day catechism suggests endorsement of ‘contraceptive methods’"

It should read "Italian Translation of WYD catechism ..." You have to go well into the article before it is clear that the Italian translation is the problem and not, for instance, the English translation. But at least it goes on to make clear that the Ignatius Press edition does not endorse contraception.

[Joe]

Thank you for clarifying. I'm a bit disappointed in the way CNA handled this. Their headline is unnecessarily provocative and misleading.

Certainly, this is something that needs to be addressed in the Italian translation and it is good for it to come to light, but it should not be the sole focus. YOUCAT is a phenomenal new resource for our Catholic youth that needs to be promoted, not shot down before it gets out of the starting gate.

[Diane at Te Deum Laudamus]

Mark,

Is it possible that there were two iterations of German, perhaps an early draft and then the final version which was the one you got?

If CNA says they verified the problem was in the original German, it would be interesting to see if the German text they are reading is the same German text Ignatius had.

I'm thinking that perhaps more than one German version had gotten out with each being at different stages, otherwise, CNA needs to square it's story.

[Bender]

The above excerpt is for YOUNG PEOPLE??

It is hardly a model of clarity. I can easily see a teenager read it and say, "huh?"

[Maiki]

It is for young people going to WYD, which I estimate are in their late teens, or their 20s. It is more concise than the Catechism, but it seems pretty straightforward, Bender.