A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[graciew]

I think he was being sarcastic…

Maybe that is why the Pope said we have to meet each other where we are at.

After reading the posts,and at different levels of conscience, one thing is to address a baptized person who has erroneous judgement as stated in CCC1792 because of rejection of Church teaching for example ,that would render inaccurate the idea that one can go against the Pope for example.

Something different was Newman s experience since he did not know,he was a convert. And he reached the concept of Papal supremacy more experiencially too.

What I see is that following his conscience Newman arrived at the truth and he converted to Catholicism. This is what Longing Soul seems to be saying that if everything disappeared Jesus would be with us.

Thomas seems to be addressing this deeper level still.

Presentation by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

It was from Newman that we learned to understand the primacy of the Pope. Freedom of conscience, Newman told us, is not identical with the right “to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations”. Thus, conscience in its true sense is the bedrock of Papal authority; its power comes from revelation that completes natural conscience, which is imperfectly enlightened, and “the championship of the Moral Law and of conscience is its raison d’être”. … This teaching on conscience has become ever more important for me in the continued development of the Church and the world.

Newman had become a convert as a man of conscience; it was his conscience that led him out of the old ties and securities into the world of Catholicism, which was difficult and strange for him. But this way of conscience is everything except a way of self-sufficient subjectivity: it is a way of obedience to objective truth.Newman’s teaching on the development of doctrine … I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive contribution to the renewal of theology.

The characteristic of the great Doctor of the Church, it seems to me, is that he teaches not only through his thought and speech but also by his life, because within him, thought and life are interpenetrated and defined. If this is so, then Newman belongs to the great teachers of the Church, because he both touches our hearts and enlightens our thinking.

So probably we had different things in mind .In all honesty.

Thinking aloud…

 

[Thomas_White]

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment… For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in its depths” (CCC 1776). (emphasis added)

I believe this teaching, which is the first provision of the CCC’s section on conscience, is crucial to an understanding of all that follows.

 

[graciew]

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment… For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in its depths” (CCC 1776). (emphasis added)

I believe this teaching, which is the first provision of the CCC’s section on conscience, is crucial to an understanding of all that follows.

I believe so too.
And we can recognize each other as brothers ,Thomas . All of us as persons ,as children of God. That is in our DNA !

 

[Thomas_White]

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!

And thanks for making it clear that the real disagrement (or misunderstanding) here is with the teachings of the Church.

 

[Louie1983]

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.

All good mate.

 

[Thomas_White]

I believe so too.
And we can recognize each other as brothers ,Thomas . All of us as persons ,as children of God. That is in our DNA !

Yes, I know. It is part of our God-given nature, and surely this is why conscience must be obeyed. What I wonder is whether this was part of our nature before the Fall (Original Sin)? This is difficult. I tend to think it was.

 

[Ender]

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 know what the words say. What I am trying to discuss is your understanding of what they mean.

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?

I expect you to defend your interpretation of its meaning, something you have up until now refused to do. What does it imply?

If your conscience leads you to violate church doctrine on some point, given that you are to follow your conscience, should you expect to be held accountable for that sin or not?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I know what the words say. What I am trying to discuss is your understanding of what they mean.
I expect you to defend your interpretation of its meaning, something you have up until now refused to do. What does it imply?

If your conscience leads you to violate church doctrine on some point, given that you are to follow your conscience, should you expect to be held accountable for that sin or not?

Ender

If I have a “position”, it is that the words mean precisely what they say: a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. I really do not understand what you mean by “interpretation”.

As I understand what Cardinal Ratzinger has said, if a certain judgment of conscience of a person results in an act that violates church doctrine they might or might not commit a sin. In other words, an act that is the certain judgment of conscience, performed after hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience, can be correct even if it violates church doctrine. In any case, a human being must obey that certain judgement of conscience or he is condemned.

It is possible for a person to perform an act that is a judgment of conscience but errs. In that case, if it is a certain judgment, it is the result of listening to a ‘stiffled’ voice of the conscience, and the guilt lies at a deeper level. This concerns what Ratzinger terms a distortion of the “anemnensis”, a concept that originates in the philosophy of Plato. Why a person must nevertheless obey the certain judgment of conscience, even though it errs, would seem to mean the person is guilty for having ‘stiffled’ the voice of his conscience (as in the case of Hilter or Stalin). As I have tried to note, if one disagrees here the disagrement is really with Ratzinger’s teaching on conscience, and I have already been accused of dishonesty for trying in good faith to explain what is a complex teaching. I did not see that as a charitable response, and it left me unwilling to continue the discussion. My thinking was, okay, then contribute something of your own for the discussion.

Ender, the thing is, and as you know, we have already discussed this in great detail on another thread, and this is another reason I have been unwilling to provide the same detail all over again on this thread.

 

[clem456]

I know what the words say. What I am trying to discuss is your understanding of what they mean.
I expect you to defend your interpretation of its meaning, something you have up until now refused to do. What does it imply?

If your conscience leads you to violate church doctrine on some point, given that you are to follow your conscience, should you expect to be held accountable for that sin or not?

Ender

Just to add to that, I would ask the poster to defend the selectivity of his representation of Cdl. Ratzinger’s article. He is proof texting a quote to make a point which the article itself calls into question immediately following.
I and others have posted more in depth quotes.
Thomas, are you willing to address the whole article in good faith or not? If not, I have to wonder why you referenced it?

Another poster uses Newman’s words out of context, without Benedict’s commentary, which disagrees with their own.

 

[clem456]

As I understand what Cardinal Ratzinger has said, if a certain judgment of conscience of a person results in an act that violates church doctrine they might or might not commit a sin. In other words, an act that is the certain judgment of conscience, performed after hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience, can be correct even if it violates church doctrine. In any case, a human being must obey that certain judgement of conscience or he is condemned.

This is not at all what he says.
Some more in depth material regarding conscience/truth has been posted. Are you willing to address it or not?

If not, just say so and we can both stop this and do something productive.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is not at all what he says.
Some more in depth material regarding conscience/truth has been posted. Are you willing to address it or not?

If not, just say so and we can both stop this and do something productive.

"It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stiffled the protest of the anemnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a deeper place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth" –Conscience and Truth, Joseph Cardinal Ratziner, 1991, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (emphasis added)

This is the second to last sentence prior to the Epilogue of the letter by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Please first provide your interpretation of it.

 

[clem456]

"It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stiffled the protest of the anemnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a deeper place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth" –Conscience and Truth, Joseph Cardinal Ratziner, 1991, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (emphasis added)

This is the second to last sentence prior to the Epilogue of the letter by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Please first provide your interpretation of it.

Thomas, c’mon now.
I’ve posted several times from the article, including the section immediately following that quote. His words don’t need my interpretation, Cdnl Ratzinger does a fine job of explaining himself. But, it is an article that contains more than one sentence, out of context.

You are fooling no one.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, c’mon now.
I’ve posted several times from the article, including the section immediately following that quote. His words don’t need my interpretation, Cdnl Ratzinger does a fine job of explaining himself. But, it is an article that contains more than one sentence, out of context.

You are fooling no one.

lol

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, c’mon now.
I’ve posted several times from the article, including the section immediately following that quote. His words don’t need my interpretation, Cdnl Ratzinger does a fine job of explaining himself. But, it is an article that contains more than one sentence, out of context.

You are fooling no one.

Oh, come on. It’s not that hard. Here is a prompt you can use:

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

 

[Brendan]

Oh, come on. It’s not that hard. Here is a prompt you can use:

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

And how do you define a ‘certain judgment’?

 

[LongingSoul]

"It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stiffled the protest of the anemnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a deeper place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth" –Conscience and Truth, Joseph Cardinal Ratziner, 1991, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (emphasis added)

This is the second to last sentence prior to the Epilogue of the letter by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Please first provide your interpretation of it.

I’ve just read the Epilogue and what a pure, pure joy it was. The analogy of Orestes killing his mother to avenge his fathers death by her lover… is in hindsight an erroneous judgement of the conscience. But by following his conscience, he is indicted from within by a deeper, clearer voice which causes him so much distress. (guilt) This inner conflict of “gods” ignited by the decision of his conflict is played out in the ‘holy court’ where he is aquitted, sanctified and transformed by Grace. How amazingly pre-emptive of the coming of the Saviour!

“Where the center of this Christian message is not sufficiently expressed and appreciated, truth becomes a yoke that is too heavy for our shoulders, from which we must seek to free ourselves. But the freedom gained thereby is empty.”

 

[LongingSoul]

And how do you define a ‘certain judgment’?

The example Pope Benedict gives in his epilogue is of Orestes obeying a conscience that leads him to matricide to avenge his father. He is also indicted by that very same conscience and held accountable in the ‘holy court’ within where he is acquitted, sanctified and transformed by ‘grace’.

This is the story of obeying ‘certain judgement’.

books.google.com.au/books?id=kFeP2OpGkNcC&pg=PT31&lpg=PT31&dq=It+is+never+wrong+to+follow+the+convictions+one+has+arrived+at–in+fact,+one+must+do+so.+But+it+can+very+well+be+wrong+to+have+come+to+such+askew+convictions+in+the+first+place,+by+having+stiffled+the+protest+of+the+anemnesis+of+being.+The+guilt+lies+then+in+a+deeper+place,+much+deeper–not+in+the+present+act,+not+in+the+present+judgment+of+conscience,+but+in+the+neglect+of+my+being+which+made+me+deaf+to+the+internal+promptings+of+truth%22&source=bl&ots=dfNiZrGQnB&sig=x2zTHgzEoydIr_pQncEjjbfYy0Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNpcfCobHJAhVFJ6YKHe02BvcQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Thomas_White]

The example Pope Benedict gives in his epilogue is of Orestes obeying a conscience that leads him to matricide to avenge his father. He is also indicted by that very same conscience and held accountable in the ‘holy court’ within where he is acquitted, sanctified and transformed by ‘grace’.

I’ve thought what makes this difficult to see is that it involves objective truth known subjectively, for “man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…” (CCC 1776). That this is described as “in the heart” seems to mean it is more of a subjective feeling experienced much like guilt is experienced. It is to know right from wrong, and to err leads one to ultimately realize it through guilt.

Cardinal Ratzinger devotes much of the early part of the letter to explaining the problems of a purely subjective conscience. This refutation, however, is not a refutation of conscience’s capacity to discern objective moral truth, and the conclusions of the main body of the letter make this very clear.

Ratzinger is most dismissive of legalism.

 

[Ender]

It is possible for a person to perform an act that is a judgment of conscience but errs. In that case, if it is a certain judgment, it is the result of listening to a ‘stiffled’ voice of the conscience, and the guilt lies at a deeper level.

At whatever level the guilt may be said to lie, it is still guilt, and this is the point. The mere fact that we have followed a certain judgment of our conscience does not absolve us of the sins we commit. This is why I have continued to push the question of what you think is implied by Ratzinger’s comments, and a misunderstanding of this is what led to ProdigalSun’s comment: “I’m happy that my conscience lets me off the hook.” This is an incorrect interpretation of what the church means when she says we must follow our conscience.

Why a person must nevertheless obey the certain judgment of conscience, even though it errs, would seem to mean the person is guilty for having ‘stiffled’ the voice of his conscience (as in the case of Hilter or Stalin).

Regardless, we may be held responsible for choosing wrongly even when we are sure it was the right choice at the time. The “certain judgment” is not a carte blanche to do as we choose with impunity.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

I’ve thought what makes this difficult to see is that it involves objective truth known subjectively, for “man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…” (CCC 1776). That this is described as “in the heart” seems to mean it is more of a subjective feeling experienced much like guilt is experienced…

I would disagree, as the Church considers the conscience to be a function of the intellect obeying Reason.

Could you clarify where the Church teaches that it is emotive in nature?

In Pope Benedict’s example, which Longing mentioned, we do see objective truth, the punishment of murder. The certitude of judgement did not rest on Orestes’ ‘feelings’ about his mother or Aegisthus, but on the need of the crime to be avenged.

I presume that you would agree that the a certain judgment to kill someone would need to rest on objective truth, not a feeling that one must kill them.