A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[Thomas_White]

I didn’t know that there was a final report on the Synod which has been reviewed and released via Pope Francis.

People are posting quote’s, but aren’t these merely the various opinions of different Bishops who attended at the time ?

Jim

No. The Holy See press office released the final synod document immediately following the synod’s conclusion. What I provided in comment #272 is a verbatim quote from it. The entire final document has been available on-line.

 

[clem456]

The Pope is issuing a final document next year, based on the synod’s report, the way I understand it.
The synod issued a report, but the report is just that, it is not binding on the Pope. It informs him going forward in his approach.
The way I understand it…

I don’t know the terminology for the various documents…

 

[Thomas_White]

I didn’t know that there was a final report on the Synod which has been reviewed and released via Pope Francis.

People are posting quote’s, but aren’t these merely the various opinions of different Bishops who attended at the time ?

Jim

This links provides information concerning paragraph 85 of the final synod document.

usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/10/24/bishops-wrap-up-family-synod-that-exposed-divisions

 

[ProdigalSun]

ProdigalSun;13461604:

It doesn’t say anything about approval by a bishop or tribunal. It speaks of a correct judgment in the internal forum.

There would be no trial and no proof and so on as there currently is in a tribunal. The judgment would take place in the internal forum, the forum of conscience. The validity of the first marriage would not be “reversed”. The judgment would find it null and void, the same as occurs by the judgment of a tribunal.

I do not think this is the modified tribunal process which has already been approved.

Ha hah, oh my, Wishful thinking but it will not happen like that. You think the church is going to leave it up to the couples conscience to figure out if they’re married. A preist will help the couple to come to a right decision and if they still persist in their obstinance it will leave the priest with no other choice.
Thomas I’m sure you mean well and would like to think that all this synod stuff is going to change the basics of the annulment process but regardless of mercy and love (which is great and much needed in these situations) the church still needs to investigate if the first marriage is valid

 

[ProdigalSun]

The Synod report stated that the internal forum “contributes”. This has been true in the tribunals, since they too examine intent and disposition, which are matters of the internal forum.

So there is nothing new here.

And incidentally, the very term ‘contribute’ would seem to indicate that the internal forum itself is not the judge of validity, but a presenter of information to the judge.

“EXACTLY RIGHT” How can one even think that the couple will be free to follow there conscious and determine whether or not their first marriage was valid. This makes absolutely no sense. Thomas I think you will be disappointed when you find that this is not the case.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13462232:

Ha hah, oh my, Wishful thinking but it will not happen like that. You think the church is going to leave it up to the couples conscience to figure out if they’re married. A preist will help the couple to come to a right decision and if they still persist in their obstinance it will leave the priest with no other choice.
Thomas I’m sure you mean well and would like to think that all this synod stuff is going to change the basics of the annulment process but regardless of mercy and love (which is great and much needed in these situations) the church still needs to investigate if the first marriage is valid

Perhaps in your wisdom you should write a letter to Pope Francis explaining why you believe change is impossible.

p.s.–I’d be sure to mention why you think the Catholic teaching that “an informed conscience is, as the Church has always taught, the final arbiter” is also wrong.

 

[ProdigalSun]

This links provides information concerning paragraph 85 of the final synod document.

usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/10/24/bishops-wrap-up-family-synod-that-exposed-divisions

You use AP to interpret what the synod document HAS TO SAY? No thanks reading the info clearly shows that the internal forum will “Contribute” to the investigation. It is only common sense this is how it will work.

Cheers!

 

[ProdigalSun]

ProdigalSun;13463381:

Perhaps in your wisdom you should write a letter to Pope Francis explaining why you believe change is impossible.

p.s.–I’d be sure to mention why you think the Catholic teaching that "an informed conscience is, as the Church has always taught

, the final arbiter" is also wrong.

A " Correctly" formed conscious you mean. because as we know some peoples conscious allows for many levels of sin to be found conscionable. Abortion being a prime example. An abortionist actually prayed with a prolife group thanking God for her ability to perform abortion. Many things in our culture have deformed our conscious. As you have highlighted in on of your posts that 70% of Catholic’s do not follow church teaching on many things such as contraception, abortion, marriage. If someone’s conscious is not formed correctly how will it choose the truth. This will also be apart of the internal forum with the priest… to help the couple flesh out proper thinking!
Cheers!

By the way I never said that change was not impossible, when it comes to pastoral realities, such as showing Love and mercy. But like Archbishop Chaput said dishonest love and mercy helps know one. I would be dishonest to let a couple think their marriage is not valid when in fact it is. THe only way of determining if a sacramental marriage is in fact not valid is through an investigation of the facts. Facts the the couple gets to contribute to just as the final document shows.

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13463402:

A " Correctly" formed conscious you mean. because as we know some peoples conscious allows for many levels of sin to be found conscionable. Abortion being a prime example. An abortionist actually prayed with a prolife group thanking God for her ability to perform abortion. Many things in our culture have deformed our conscious. As you have highlighted in on of your posts that 70% of Catholic’s do not follow church teaching on many things such as contraception, abortion, marriage.

If someone’s conscious is not formed correctly how will it choose the truth. This will also be apart of the internal forum with the priest… to help the couple flesh out proper thinking!
Cheers!

By the way I never said that change was not impossible, when it comes to pastoral realities, such as showing Love and mercy. But like Archbishop Chaput said dishonest love and mercy helps know one. I would be dishonest to let a couple think their marriage is not valid when in fact it is. THe only way of determining if a sacramental marriage is in fact not valid is through an investigation of the facts. Facts the the couple gets to contribute to just as the final document shows.

Peace:thumbsup:

The final synod document I quoted verbatim says what it says. If a person disagrees with the recommendation of the bishops that too is what it is, though it is noted there are a number of comments on this thread that reflect a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. It seems this is equally true with respect to the plain and clear language of the final synod document.

I realize there are a vocal few who cling to the status quo because change is frightening to them, but through the centuries the Church has always changed as it advances in its understanding in a temporal world of continuous change.

We will see what Pope Francis decides.

 

[clem456]

Thomas
Can you provide a reference to Church teaching in regards to
“conscience is the final arbiter”
and what exactly that means?

If you mean that a person can and should make moral decisions based on the judgment of conscience, ok.

If you mean that individual conscience can alter the objective right/wrong, or can change reality, of a situation, then no. (ie, I am living in sin, but because my conscience is not conformed to the truth, that means I am not living in sin)

Can you provide clarification?

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas
Can you provide a reference to Church teaching in regards to
“conscience is the final arbiter”
and what exactly that means?

If you mean that a person can and should make moral decisions based on the judgment of conscience, ok.

If you mean that individual conscience can alter the objective right/wrong, or can change reality, of a situation, then no. (ie, I am living in sin, but because my conscience is not conformed to the truth, that means I am not living in sin)

Can you provide clarification?

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

For an understanding of what this and CCC 1776 mean, see the link provided below:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

It is of particular interest if its relation to the writings of Plato (Cf. ‘Meno’) and Augustine are considered relative to the concept of anemnensis.

 

[clem456]

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

For an understanding of what this and CCC 1776 mean, see the link provided below:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

It is of particular interest if its relation to the writings of Plato (Cf. ‘Meno’) and Augustine are considered relative to the concept of anemnensis.

Do you realize the article from Cardinal Ratzinger does not agree with what you have been attempting to say?
Here is a passage that affirms the role of conscience relative to authority, in proper context.

…
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.

Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances.

Speaks right to the heart of the problem with human freedom in relation to authority. The improper exaltation of conscience will erode human freedom, plain and simple, because it is subjective.

 

[clem456]

This article is worth reading for anyone interested in this conscience problem.

Thomas White:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

I am happy you linked to this article. It points out the underlying potential danger inherent in the improper exaltation of individual conscience.

1. A Conversation On The Erroneous Conscience And First Inferences
   …
   the matter of conscience. As I said, what unsettled me in the argument just recounted was first of all the caricature of faith I perceived in it. In a second course of reflection, it occurred to me further that the concept of conscience which it implied must also be wrong. The erroneous conscience, by sheltering the person from the exacting demands of truth, saves him …—thus went the argument. Conscience appeared here not as a window through which one can see outward to that common truth which founds and sustains us all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth, the community of needs and responsibilities. Conscience here does not mean man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential. Rather, it appears as subjectivity’s protective shell into which man can escape and there hide from reality. Liberalism’s idea of conscience was in fact presupposed here. Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding. It is the faculty which dispenses from truth. It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which should not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth ceases, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, are sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction and the less depth he has, the better for him.

 

[Thomas_White]

Do you realize the article from Cardinal Ratzinger does not agree with what you have been attempting to say?
Here is a passage that affirms the role of conscience relative to authority, in proper context.

Speaks right to the heart of the problem with human freedom in relation to authority. The improper exaltation of conscience will erode human freedom, plain and simple, because it is subjective.

What have I been attempting to say?

“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.” (Emphasis added)

Conscience can err but that the certain judgment of conscience must nevertheless be obeyed, even if it is contrary to Church teaching, is where the concept of anemnensis become important. I do not see by your reply that this important teaching about conscience is at all understood.

 

[Ender]

The plain and clear recommendation of the synod says what it says.

What it says is clearly not plain inasmuch as we have drawn two different conclusions.*“The process of accompaniment and discernment guides these faithful to an examination of conscience about their situation before God. Speaking with a priest in the internal forum contributes to the formation of a correct judgment about that which blocks the possibility of a fuller life in the Church…” *–Section 86, Final Synod Report
You take that to mean a priest and the appellant can determine between the two of them whether the prior marriage was valid. Given that such a determination must be based on the facts of the matter as well as the laws involved (not to mention the rights of the other party to the marriage), and that most priests are unlikely to be familiar with either, such an interpretation seems unlikely in the extreme. It is more likely that the “formation of a correct judgment” means coming to a proper understanding of the true nature of the irregular situation and why it bars one from receiving communion.

What you provide concerns the legal interpretation of Canon 130 of the code of Canon Law. I do not believe it applies to the recommendation of the synod which does speak of the internal forum as the forum of conscience.

Given that we are discussing the internal and external fora, Canon 130, which specifically addresses both, is obviously relevant.Can. 130 Of itself, the power of governance is exercised for the external forum; sometimes, however, it is exercised for the internal forum alone, so that the effects which its exercise is meant to have for the external forum are not recognized there, except insofar as the law establishes it in determined cases.
Insisting that marriages can be ruled invalid via the internal forum assumes that what the church has already declared is simply irrelevant, and that rules can be made up on the go with no concern today for what was done yesterday. You have dealt with the objections I’ve raised by ignoring them, and by defining your interpretations of vague statements as transparently correct. This issue is not nearly as simple as you presume it to be.

Ender

 

[clem456]

What have I been attempting to say?

“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.” (Emphasis added)

Conscience can err but that the certain judgment of conscience must nevertheless be obeyed, even if it is contrary to Church teaching, is where the concept of anemnensis become important. I do not see by your reply that this is at all understood.

You selectively take the quote waaaaay out of context. Can you comment on the fuller elaborations that I qouted?

Can you show us where the Church has ever said that the judgment of an erroneous conscience must be obeyed even if contrary to the truth?
A person makes judgments according to conscience, so in that sense a person acts according to that judgment. but nowhere does the Church exalt the individual conscience in that way, that it must act against objective truth.
The passage I quoted from the same article directly contradicts this assertion.

Directly. Cardinal Josef Ratzinger. I trust the man’s expertise in this area.

 

[clem456]

What have I been attempting to say?

“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.” (Emphasis added)

Conscience can err but that the certain judgment of conscience must nevertheless be obeyed, even if it is contrary to Church teaching, is where the concept of anemnensis become important. I do not see by your reply that this important teaching about conscience is at all understood.

And I am sorry if this is going to get contentious, but what you are doing is dishonest.
Here is a fuller quote of the snippet you took above. You are twisting the words of Cardinal Ratzinger to your own purposes.

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.

Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.

1. A Conversation On The Erroneous Conscience And First Inferences
   …

 

[Ender]

p.s.–I’d be sure to mention why you think the Catholic teaching that “an informed conscience is, as the Church has always taught, the final arbiter” is also wrong.

If you mean the final arbiter of right and wrong, it should be transparently obvious that the church has never taught this. If you mean that the individual should follow his conscience, this is true, but it has nothing to do with right and wrong, and if the individual chooses wrongly he will be held accountable. It surely does not mean that the church endorses whatever he chooses to do or will act in response to the individual’s beliefs rather than her own. A man may believe his first marriage was invalid and that his second marriage should not bar him from communion, but in the church’s eyes unless his first marriage has been officially declared invalid, his situation is objectively disordered and reception of communion would be a grave sin regardless of truth about the validity of his first marriage.

Ender

 

[clem456]

Here’s more for those who might be under the wrong impression:

What I was only dimly aware of in this conversation became glaringly clear a little later in a dispute among colleagues about the justifying power of the erroneous conscience. Objecting to this thesis, someone countered that if this were so then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience. Another responded with utmost assurance that of course this was indeed the case. There is no doubting the fact that Hitler and his accomplices who were deeply convinced of their cause, could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, the objective terribleness of their deeds notwithstanding, they acted morally, subjectively speaking. Since they followed their albeit mistaken consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and, as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation. Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false. For, subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom do not justify man.

 

[clem456]

By the way, a look into Sacred Scripture should have precluded such diagnoses and such a theory of justification by the errant conscience. In Psalm 19:12-13, we find the ever worth pondering passage: “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from my unknown faults.” That is not Old Testament objectivism, but profoundest human wisdom. No longer seeing one’s guilt, the falling silent of conscience in so many areas, is an even more dangerous sickness of the soul than the guilt which one still recognizes as such. He who no longer notices that killing is a sin has fallen farther than the one who still recognizes the shamefulness of his actions, because the former is further removed form the truth and conversion. Not without reason does the self-righteous man in the encounter with Jesus appear as the one who is really lost.

I find this last sentence particularly interesting, as those who simply assent to Church teaching are frequently assailed as self-righteous legalists.