This has been my complaint about the final report. The degree of ambiguity on these points could hardly be accidental. The bishops understood what was being debated and apparently decided not to address the questions in such a way as to answer them.Professor Grisez’ opening paragraph indeed notes the ambiguity of the Synod’s final report.
You interpret “final arbiter” to mean that what the conscience chooses is valid. The church means only that it makes the final choice, valid or not.
Pope Paul was explaining the formation of the conscience. The very fact that it must be formed means that it has no innate ability to form a proper judgment in all cases.
Final arbiter of what? Truth? That is absolutely not what is meant.*To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear… *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor)
This has never been in dispute. The question was never whether we had an obligation to follow our conscience; the issue has always been (a) whether we can sin by following our conscience, and (b) whether we may be held accountable for that sin.It is noted that the quotation does not question that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience.
Well, that question has been answered several times by the link to the letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger. However, the OP concerns the use of the internal forum as an approach to the divorced/remarried receiving communion. If the concern is that the certain judgment of conscience can err in this respect, what of the marriage tribunal process. It is not infallible.This has never been in dispute. The question was never whether we had an obligation to follow our conscience; the issue has always been (a) whether we can sin by following our conscience, and (b) whether we may be held accountable for that sin.
According to the church the answer to both those questions is yes.
Ender
And Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly rejected this approach, as did JPII.Well, that question has been answered several times by the link to the letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger. However, the OP concerns the use of the internal forum as an approach to the divorced/remarried receiving communion.
That there is no such thing as an infallible process hardly means that all processes are therefore equal. The right and responsibility for determining the validity of a marriage lies exclusively in the external forum as determined by the church.If the concern is that the certain judgment of conscience can err in this respect, what of the marriage tribunal process. It is not infallible.
No one expects absolute certainty. What is expected, however, is an unbiased search for the truth…something not available from the internal forum.Marriage tribunals grant many thousands of annullments every year. What if it errs (and it undoubtedly does)? Who then is held accountable for its errors? Are we not seeking absolute certainty where there is none?
No. What the final synod document seems to recommend is not the exclusive use of the “internal forum” which JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of some decades ago. Both a priest and a bishop would be involved in the recommended process, and this would entail the use of the external forum. It is somewhat astonishing that it seems this is not widely understood.And Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly rejected this approach, as did JPII.
Yes, it is not questioned that this is the current teaching, but it later became a question before the synod of bishops. It should be obvious that relying strictly on current teaching for an answer to the question that was before the synod is legalism.That there is no such thing as an infallible process hardly means that all processes are therefore equal. The right and responsibility for determining the validity of a marriage lies exclusively in the external forum as determined by the church.
Why would an unbiased search for the truth not be available in the internal forum? Cannot a human being have a spiritual life? I do not understand the insistence that spirituality is exclusively an objective process, and, quite frankly, that it would be so limited is nonsensical. It concerns the gross error of legalism and is counter to the history of Christianity and every world religion. The entire ministry of the historical Jesus on the earth could fairly be understood as a rebellion against the Law, and the consequences for it are plain and clear.No one expects absolute certainty. What is expected, however, is an unbiased search for the truth…something not available from the internal forum.
Ender
It is not possible to understand something that has not actually been proposed, but the key point is this: where is the statement of nullity made? Does it come from the internal or the external forum? If from the external forum, then there is no significant change to the existing system, and no reason for concern. If from the internal forum then everything the church has said about the matter is reversed, the statements of JPII, BXVI, and all the preceding popes who have spoken on this matter are repudiated, and there is great reason for concern. So, which forum is to declare on the matter?No. What the final synod document seems to recommend is not the exclusive use of the “internal forum” which JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of some decades ago. Both a priest and a bishop would be involved in the recommended process, and this would entail the use of the external forum. It is somewhat astonishing that it seems this is not widely understood.
If this was true it would set up an interesting situation. If the existing procedure is changed, because it would be mere legalism to follow doctrine, then what happens when the new procedure becomes doctrine? Wouldn’t it be mere legalism to follow it, and wouldn’t that be reason to change it again? Your interpretation would not lead to the improvement of doctrine but to its elimination.Yes, it is not questioned that this is the current teaching, but it later became a question before the synod of bishops. It should be obvious that relying strictly on current teaching for an answer to the question that was before the synod is legalism.
There is nothing that hampers us from searching for truth, but the truth about the validity of a marriage is not determined simply by the personal feelings of one of the parties. Nor is anyone to judge for himself the outcome of his own case.*Since marriage has a fundamental public ecclesial character and the axiom applies that nemo iudex in propria causa (no one is judge in his own case), marital cases must be resolved in the external forum. *(Ratzinger)Why would an unbiased search for the truth not be available in the internal forum?
This discussion has nothing whatever to do with one’s spiritual life. It has to do with facts and the law. It involves a search for the truth, and the truth has no dependency at all on what someone feels about it.Cannot a human being have a spiritual life? I do not understand the insistence that spirituality is exclusively an objective process, and, quite frankly, that it would be so limited is nonsensical.
That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the issue. No one is trying to judge the spirituality of the spouses in a failed marriage; it has no bearing on the facts of the matter. Either the marriage was valid, or it wasn’t.A difficulty is the rejection of the interior life of a human being and its essential relationship to spirituality by the insistence that it can somehow be objectively known and judged. I do not believe this is possible.
Both spouses have the right to challenge the ruling to another tribunal. Even before that I believe that a second tribunal has to confirm the ruling. Finally, if the situation has been judged by three (or even two) tribunals, where is the justification for claiming a tribunal has erred? How can that be determined? If that still doesn’t satisfy you, then there is this:*“When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” *(Augustine)But you have not answered my question, so I will ask it again: Who is held accountable when a marriage tribunal errs?