A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[Brendan]

So answer this: if a person commits an act which he believes is acceptable, but which the church teaches is a sin, will he be held accountable for having sinned?

Ender

I would also add, to what extent should Catholics attempt to dissuade the person from committing that act?

 

[Thomas_White]

“Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word. Some authors reduce conscience in this its aspect of final arbiter to the formula: conscience is infallible.”

Thomas.
You picked that quote out of a huge article. It is out of context with the Cardinal’s words immediately following and throughout.
You are misrepresenting what he said. The article doesn’t begin to support you understanding of conscience.
What you are doing is attempting to deceive.

Please explain why you believe the above quote is an attempt to deceive. The article by Cardinal Ratziner cannot be understood if the quote is not understood.

 

[clem456]

Please explain why you believe the above quote is an attempt to deceive. The article by Cardinal Ratziner cannot be understood if the quote is not understood. Are they not his words?

Your out of context quote has already been addressed with the cardinal’s own words. In several posts.
Have a good Thanksgiving.

 

[Thomas_White]

Your out of context quote has already been addressed with the cardinal’s own words. In several posts.
Have a good Thanksgiving.

I didn’t think you could answer the question. Are these quotes also out of context?

CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

“Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessarily against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” --Joseph Ratzinger, (in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II).

I did not believe you would attempt to answer the question. It is not surprising. Your ad hominem remark was the reply.

 

[Thomas_White]

How is a person to know what is sinful? If I am allowed in good conscience to ignore the church when she says X is a sin, why would I not be allowed to ignore her when she says abortion is a sin? If I can justifiably ignore her teaching about one sin am I not equally justified in ignoring her positions on all of them? As you frequently point out, three quarters of all Catholics ignore the church’s teaching on contraception. According to you they are justified in doing so, at least those who are “certain” it is justifiable in their circumstances.

So answer this: if a person commits an act which he believes is acceptable, but which the church teaches is a sin, will he be held accountable for having sinned?

Ender

I have never said that those who ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception are justified in doing so, and that was hardly the reason I have this pointed this out. I don’t know. I cannot know. Cardinal Kasper has said it amounts to a practical schism in the Church.

What I have provided concerning conscience is what the Church has said. I think you would do well to realize it is the teachings of the Church that you are disputing.

 

[Ender]

I have never said that those who ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception are justified in doing so, and that was hardly the reason I have this pointed this out. I don’t know. I cannot know. Cardinal Kasper has said it amounts to a practical schism in the Church.

What I have provided concerning conscience is what the Church has said. I think you would do well to realize it is the teachings of the Church that you are disputing.

Again, I don’t dispute what the church teaches. I am disputing your understanding of those teachings by trying to get you to address the implications of your position. You have said several times that an individual must follow his certain conscience even if it is contrary to church doctrine. OK, there must be any number of Catholics who use contraception and are sure they are justified in doing so. What does that mean for them?

So I’ll ask again: in following their certain consciences they have acted in a way the church considers sinful. Do they have a valid expectation that they will not be held accountable for sinning because they were following their consciences?

Ender

 

[graciew]

Thanks for the interesting link. I found this sentence particularly interesting:

“Even deeper for me was the contribution which Heinrich Fries published in connection with the Jubilee of Chalcedon. Here I found access to Newman’s teaching on the development of doctrine, which I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive contribution to theology.”

From what I have seen, what that then-Cardinal Ratzinger taught about the development of doctrine, his influence on Dei Verbum, and this teachings on conscience are not widely known. But I think they are very important to an understanding of the recommendation of the final document of the synod concerning divorce and remarriage and the primacy of conscience.

I think what Archbishop Chaput meant was that if in this example it is the certain judgment of conscience that a first marriage was valid, then it would be “dishonest mercy” to conclude otherwise. This seems a reasonable conclusion.

I did get much also from Dignitatis Humanae about the topic.( again wide. Not specifically D/R)
The non cohersive which is clear too.
It draws one into topic. Somehow St Paul came to my mind and I went to The Lord ,part 6. Chapter 10. The New Man. I know how ! When I read that 1800 CCC was within Human Dignity and Life in Christ.
I ll read Dei Verbum again.
Sorry I cannot copy from my book what is written in The Lord .It is long and my book is is Spanish.I will if I find a short part.
Anyway , though I do not know exactly where that hinge is for me to say : this was it , these conversations are worth the travel. I do not like debate much btw.

Thanks !

 

[Thomas_White]

I did get much also from Dignitatis Humanae about the topic.( eagain wide. Not specifically D/R)
The non cohersive which is clear too.
It draws one into topic. Somehow St Paul came to my mind and I went to The Lord ,part 6. Chapter 10. The New Man. I know how ! When I read that 1800 CCC was within Human Dignity and Life in Christ.
I ll read Dei Verbum again.
Sorry I cannot copy from my book what is written in The Lord .It is long and my book is is Spanish.I will if I find a short part.
Anyway , though I do not know exactly where that hinge is for me to say : this was it , these conversations are worth the travel. I do not like debate much btw.

Thanks !

Yes, ‘The Lord’ is an excellent book and an influence on the last three popes. That Cardinal Ratzinger said a person must always obey the certain judgment of conscience is difficult to understand. There is another talk he gave that explains this more clearly, and I will try to find it. This was already a topic on another long CA thread, and it is a core concept in the theology of Joseph Ratziner.

Here is a link that explains Ratzinger’s influence on Dei Verbum:

vitamutaturnontollitur.blogspot.com/2014/09/ratzinger-and-theology-of-revelation.html

Of course I realize you do not much like debate, and as with my last reply this is only to provide a bit of information. I think it is interesting.

As for the debate, it really has become tiresome having to explain the correct teachings of the Church to the few. I think the key thing is that we live in a temporal world of change where the understanding of Apostolic preaching is a continual process. Cardinal Ratzinger has said that revelation is revealed again and again over the centuries to each new generation and will continue in this way until the end of time. I provided links to all of this in the other thread. And of course it was disputed there as well.

 

[Thomas_White]

Again, I don’t dispute what the church teaches. I am disputing your understanding of those teachings by trying to get you to address the implications of your position. You have said several times that an individual must follow his certain conscience even if it is contrary to church doctrine. OK, there must be any number of Catholics who use contraception and are sure they are justified in doing so. What does that mean for them?

Why is it so difficult to grasp that what I have provided is not “my position” but the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger?

“Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessarily against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” --Joseph Ratzinger, (in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II).

So I’ll ask again: in following their certain consciences they have acted in a way the church considers sinful. Do they have a valid expectation that they will not be held accountable for sinning because they were following their consciences?

I cannot know what another person expects, but what Cardinal Ratzinger has said is clear enough. A person can err in following even the certain judgment of conscience, and if so the guilt is at a deeper level. What I do find odd is that I am expected to defend the teaching of the future Pope Benedict XVI. Why is that?

 

[LongingSoul]

I would also add, to what extent should Catholics attempt to dissuade the person from committing that act?

For Priests in the exercise of the internal forum, it’s not unheard of for them to defer to a persons conscience even against Church teaching. There’s discernment involved on both parts. Cardinal Newman in his letter to the the Bishop of Norfolk started…*.“it seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word.” *

He finished by stating… “I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

It seems very clear that the Church puts an extremely high value on the intrinsic supremacy of conscience to be able to state such things.

 

[clem456]

For Priests in the exercise of the internal forum, it’s not unheard of for them to defer to a persons conscience even against Church teaching. There’s discernment involved on both parts. Cardinal Newman in his letter to the the Bishop of Norfolk started…*.“it seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word.” *

He finished by stating… “I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

It seems very clear that the Church puts an extremely high value on the intrinsic supremacy of conscience to be able to state such things.

Interestingly enough, Benedict addresses this quote of Newman’s at some length.
Have you seen that? Benedict emphasizes that conscience can never be exalted over truth.

 

[Thomas_White]

I found this part of the Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks much more of relevant interest:

“A man of conscience, is one who never aquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of public opinion at the expense of truth. In this regard, Newman is related to Britian’s other great witness of conscience, Thomas More, for whom conscience was not at all an expression of subjective stubbornness or obstinate heroism. He numbered himself, in fact, among those fainthearted martyrs who only after much faltering and much questioning succeed in mustering up obediance to conscience, mustering up obediance to the truth which must stand higher than any human tribunal or any type of personal taste.”

[See CCC 1776 with respect to God’s law inscribed on the conscience of man.]

 

[graciew]

LongingSoul:
He finished by stating… “I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

It seems very clear that the Church puts an extremely high value on the intrinsic supremacy of conscience to be able to state such things.

Hi Longing Soul ,this is the quote just this one I was interested in. Not the topuc of D/R frankly.
I ve read more about it and it does not seem.to be as understood straightaway.
If I haven t provided it yet ,I will post a better explanation.
It rattled me and I went beyond that.
I still have to re read Dei Verbum.
It is more of cohesion than cohersion ,it is cooperation.
Just give me some time.
It is so interesting. I do not care to be right or wrong at all. It has become an opportunity to read more. For me the key still lies in the Pauline sense of freedom ,the New Man ,somewhere along those lines.
I do not see it as loose individual conscience ,there is more to that in discernment. At least ,discernemnt in Jesus which is also interesting to see.
Thanks !

 

[Louie1983]

Um…then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, said it.

Do you understand what “certain judgment of conscience” means and why it must be obeyed? Why is it you believe the certain judgment of conscience of a person who knew “full well” that abortion is a sin would contradict church teaching?

Really, one should limit comments to you and several others to verbatim quotes only since you are disputing the provisions of the final synod document, the CCC’s teaching on conscience, and now the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI on conscience, none of which you have shown you understand. And you are doing this under the misleading but never explained presumption you are somehow presenting church teaching. Sorry to have to say it, but it is what it is and someone needs to say it.

LOL, Speaking of misunderstanding…you do a fine job of doing that yourself.

WOW, Touchy,Touchy…Relax Thomas it was question. I wasn’t having a go at you, I was actually trying to understand it better since you seem to have a lot of knowledge regarding this topic… that presumption was definitely wrong.

“It is what it is”, this has been a typical response from you where you present an argument, then back away from it and say “it’s not me, it’s someone that said it therefore it’s not me you’re disagreeing with” especially when you’ve been found out. No room for the possibility that your interpretation may in fact be incorrect?

Anyway I won’t bother with this anymore, I’ll continue to read as it is a very good subject and I appreciate everyone’s contribution to the discussion.

God bless and keep you safe.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hi Longing Soul ,this is the quote just this one I was interested in. Not the topuc of D/R frankly.
I ve read more about it and it does not seem.to be as understood straightaway.
If I haven t provided it yet ,I will post a better explanation.
It rattled me and I went beyond that.
I still have to re read Dei Verbum.
It is more of cohesion than cohersion ,it is cooperation.
Just give me some time.
It is so interesting. I do not care to be right or wrong at all. It has become an opportunity to read more. For me the key still lies in the Pauline sense of freedom ,the New Man ,somewhere along those lines.
I do not see it as loose individual conscience ,there is more to that in discernment. At least ,discernemnt in Jesus which is also interesting to see.
Thanks !

Cardinal Newman has a lovely flare in his letter but it demonstrates his real esteem and reverence for the human gift of conscience as sacred.

Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its {249} blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

It conveys a wonderful fact. If the Pope and all the clergy disappeared completely, Christ will still be with us in the same way, through mans conscience.

Myself, I find the Catechism covers all the bases if you read the entire section on the conscience including the explanations of how much an erroneous judgement can be imputed to the person.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

I was always taught that conscience is like a muscle. It has to be exercised for it to develop. But being a divine gift, the more it develops, the more it defers to the infallible teachings of the Church not because it’s moving away from itself, but because it is recognising the Church as a sign of itself.

 

[graciew]

]

I was always taught that conscience is like a muscle. It has to be exercised for it to develop. But being a divine gift, the more it develops, the more it defers to the infallible teachings of the Church not because it’s moving away from itself, but because it is recognising the Church as a sign of itself.

Ok. Here we are closer . Tbe thing is that one discerns the greater good for what one has been created for. The obviously against a commandment for example ,what need to discern is there ? It is kind of obvious. Since you cite the Cathechism of the Catholic Church I understand we are speaking in the.context of the baptized.
And one thinks in terms of virtue ( not vituous thinking…) , what adds in us virtue. So the platform is different than random individual preferences.
Maybe you are speaking of sth different so I got the wrong line of thought.
I agree a priest helps one discern ,or helps train one s muscle.
The Pope ,I see as the safeguard .
I know you all know much. So thanks for your patience and sharing. Sometime it takes time.for sth to sink in.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Why is it so difficult to grasp that what I have provided is not “my position” but the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger?

“Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessarily against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” --Joseph Ratzinger, (in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II).

I cannot know what another person expects, but what Cardinal Ratzinger has said is clear enough. A person can err in following even the certain judgment of conscience, and if so the guilt is at a deeper level. What I do find odd is that I am expected to defend the teaching of the future Pope Benedict XVI. Why is that?

Thanks for pointing this out Thomas, I’m happy that my conscience lets me off the hook with masturbation. I was going with the church on this one because I think one should submit to the churches wisdom but know that you have pointed out that it is our conscience that is the final arbiter I can finally rest at ease and have at her! Thanks to you am free to follow my conscience.

Thank You!

 

[graciew]

Thanks for pointing this out Thomas, I’m happy that my conscience lets me off the hook with masturbation. I was going with the church on this one because I think one should submit to the churches wisdom but know that you have pointed out that it is our conscience that is the final arbiter I can finally rest at ease and have at her! Thanks to you am free to follow my conscience.

Thank You!

You know it is wrong,you ve explained it so you are not discerning,you would be plainly disobeying.
So this is not the case,Prodigal. It would be sort of defying,for me

 

[Thomas_White]

LOL, Speaking of misunderstanding…you do a fine job of doing that yourself.

WOW, Touchy,Touchy…Relax Thomas it was question. I wasn’t having a go at you, I was actually trying to understand it better since you seem to have a lot of knowledge regarding this topic… that presumption was definitely wrong.

“It is what it is”, this has been a typical response from you where you present an argument, then back away from it and say “it’s not me, it’s someone that said it therefore it’s not me you’re disagreeing with” especially when you’ve been found out. No room for the possibility that your interpretation may in fact be incorrect?

Anyway I won’t bother with this anymore, I’ll continue to read as it is a very good subject and I appreciate everyone’s contribution to the discussion.

God bless and keep you safe.

Why Cardinal Ratzinger has said that a person must obey the certain judgment of conscience lest he be condemned is not easily understood, though Aquinas said the same. It is also not easily explained in a forum comment. There are a few who will dispute anything said in what appears an attempt to shift their disagreement (or perhaps misunderstanding) away from Church teaching (where the real disagreement lies, whether realized or not) and onto any and everything I might have said in explanation. In response, I have tried to focus the discussion on the Church teaching presented in response rather than on what I have said. Having been accused of dishonesty after providing even a verbatim quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, I finally tired of it. I sincerely apologize for my comment, and I later felt bad when I realized it should not have been direct toward you.

It was a mistake to ever provide the link to the complex letter by Cardinal Ratzinger, and I am about done with it myself. Peace.

 

[Louie1983]

You know it is wrong,you ve explained it so you are not discerning,you would be plainly disobeying.
So this is not the case,Prodigal. It would be sort of defying,for me

I think he was being sarcastic…