T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is quoted in comments #66-67 on this thread. The full recommendation is in paragraphs 85-86 of the final synod document. It is a recommendation and not a change.
Cardinal Burke: synod did not, and cannot, approve 'internal forum' approach for divorced/remarried Communion
- Status
G
graciew
Guest
To tell you the truth it does sound that C. Burke cannot be objecting to what is written since it was approved ,but to the interpretation that Spadaro gave it.
As I read the final document ,one thing seems to be internal forum.as.written and another the internal forum.approach or solution as Kasper seemed yo have proposed.
I do not read anything ,at least in good faith ,that may sound strange.
Nothing would strike me as unusual or outside Church boundaries.
The fact is the paragraphs were voted by majority though tight. I do not believe C. Burke is denying this at all. But Spadaro s interpretation which I read but not in full text yet.
I do agree with you that internal forum is far from opinion. Traditionally ,it is Confession , and if I am not mistaken it is also common.practice discerning vocation to enter a seminary too. But this last statement may be inaccurate.
In any case I am glad they understand it. And the Pope is a son of the Church.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, of course it could if it is determined a first marriage was valid.
That is also very well known and not questioned, but it is not church doctrine that a correct judgment of the validity of a first marriage must be determined by a marriage tribunal. If there is a change, I would have no problem accepting it. It is a question for Pope Francis to decide. What Pope Francis decides and what others might then decide is a correct judgment of the validity of their first marriage is not a thing for me to decide, and I would not judge such a determination. What I think is we should worry about our own souls and realize the sky is not going to fall if there is a change.
G
graciew
Guest
No ,it will not fall and we are safe beneath Her mantle…
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I believe Cardinal Burke is technically correct. There was a practice some years ago known as the Internal Solution, and it specifically concerned the internal forum. The Internal Solution recognized the primacy of conscience in the case of a divorced and remarried person in deciding the validity of a first marriage, but the teaching was the practice could not be widely applied by the church. This was an old practice and was officially discontinued in the years following Vatican II.
However, what was recommend by the synod is not the Internal Solution of old. It seems it would be a process of discernment in the internal forum but also where it would be “the duty of priests to accompany those concerned along the path of discernment according to the teaching of the church and the guidance of the bishop”. With the involvement of a priest and the bishop, this is not strictly the “internal forum”, and it would seen it would also involve the external forum given that a priest and bishop would be involved.
Whether this was what Cardinal Burke meant to say, I do not know.
G
graciew
Guest
Really ? That is interesting .I did not know about the " old".
I understand about the same as you in the " new" one ,except that the accompanying of the priest would be internal ,like private. More of a guide.
Sometimes I just wish we could all be sitting around and talking. One thought leads to the other. The good thing is these Synod fathers care ,and they have put much effort and their experience into it.
Why do you see it as external ,Thomas ? Just asking
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Well, the way I understand the internal forum is as the forum of conscience and don’t think that another person can enter this internal place. Yes, the accompaniment by a priest would be private, but I think this accompaniment necessarily occurs in the external forum (which is true of confession for example). Most importantly, it is the external forum that is recognized by the church.
Canon 130 of the code of Canon Law provides the following: "Of itself the power of goverance is exercised in 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 (emphasis added).
Inasmuch as this is canon law, it might not be applicable in this instance since it perhaps provides a specific and limited definition of “internal forum” (i.e., not necessarily as the internal forum as the forum of conscience). But it does provide an explanation of the two forums and also for why a certain judgment of the internal forum could be recognized “in determined cases” (that is, with the a compliment of a priest) in the external forum.
Anyway, this is my thinking on the question.
G
graciew
Guest
Thank you.
E
Ender
Guest
That I reject your position hardly means that I don’t understand it.
Given, as you have admitted, that the certain judgment of conscience can in fact be wrong, it is assuredly a subjective opinion.
Why would there need to be a determination of validity by someone other than the individual if the individual’s judgment is guaranteed to be accurate, that is, not subjective? Second, that determination has to be made based on the facts and the law, and how are priests, who are not trained in the law and have few resources (let alone the necessary time) supposed to carry out this task? Why would turning this task over to parish priests be an improvement over the existing process?
Because it is a matter of the facts and the law. Not to mention that this point has already been decided.*7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
I’ll also point out that Ratzinger in talking about “mistaken convictions” clearly makes the point that the conscience can in fact err.
It is not at all unreasonable to first approach a priest with what one believes to be the facts surrounding the failure of the first marriage to see if a case can be made. No one opposes this. The opposition arises when it is implied that this is all that needs to be done.
If this was true then the conscience could never err, but we know the conscience in fact can err, therefore the conscience, certain or not, is a subjective opinion.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This point too was addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger.* **It must be discerned with certainty by means of the external forum ***established by the Church whether there is objectively such a nullity of marriage. The discipline of the Church, while it confirms the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical tribunals with respect to the examination of the validity of the marriage of Catholics, also offers new ways to demonstrate the nullity of a previous marriage, in order to exclude as far as possible every divergence between the truth verifiable in the judicial process and the objective truth known by a correct conscience.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
If, as you say in your comment #90, “the conscience, certain or not, is a subjective opinion”, what is it you suppose Cardinal Ratzinger meant by the phrase “the objective truth known by a correct conscience”?
E
Ender
Guest
It is known by the correct conscience; in contrast, it is not known by the incorrect conscience. Since the individual cannot know whether his conscience is correct or incorrect, the fact that it may be correct confers no special meaning to it. That we have to do what we think is right does not mean that what we think is right is actually so.
A person’s “certain judgment of conscience” has no necessary claim to truth. It is abundantly clear that “certain” is not synonymous with “correct.”
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
What is clear from the comment above is that the church’s teaching on conscience is not understood. Simply stated, the error is the erroneous conception that the certain judgment of conscience is of the intellect rather than the heart (upon which God’s law is inscribed) (CCC 1776).
To say “since the individual cannot know whether his conscience is correct or incorrect” continues the error. What the conscience knows does not originate in the human intellect and is not a question of Reason. It is of the heart. The notion that the certain judgment of conscience is the result of human reasoning is ultimately the error of legalism, which holds that truth can only be known objectively (e.g., as knowledge learned from doctrine). What the conscience knows is a feeling, and this feeling is of a spiritual nature. It is not the objective knowledge one learns in an exterior way, but rather it is an inner spiritual experience. It is to know right from wrong as part of man’s God-given nature. And in this way, it is a reflection of Objective Truth.
To hear the voice of consciece is a spiritual experience, and to reject this truth is an error of legalism. It denies the prospect of man’s direct relationship with God, questions it and, ultimately, questions spirituality itself. That there Is a direct relationship between God and man is why the certain judgment of conscience must always be obeyed. The error of legalism is so fundamental that in its extreme it would mitigate the possibility of even prayer having any meaning. From this error there results all the things Pope Francis has recently criticised: legalism, conservatism/fundamentalism, judgmentalism, a blinkered perspective and, perhaps most meaningfully, a closed heart.
That the certain judgment of conscience can err is explained in the link found elsewhere to an article by Cardinal Ratzinger.
E
Ender
Guest
We agree at least on this much.
On this, however, we completely disagree.Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.
Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.
*Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it. *(Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae)
If God’s law is fully inscribed on our hearts what is there to seek? What truth could possibly be discovered if we have it all to begin with? If the intellect is not involved how could teaching, communication and dialogue be of any use?
According to JPII it is a judgment, not a spiritual experience, and judgments involve the intellect.*…conscience is the application of the law to a particular case. (Veritatis Splendor #59)
**The judgment of conscience does not establish the law… (Ibid #60)
…in** the practical judgment of conscience**, which imposes on the person the obligation to perform a given act… (Ibid #61)
*It may be that the general guidelines of the divine law are known, but the application of those guidelines, the “application of the law to a particular case” which involves the conscience, also involves the intellect. This is why it needs to be formed, and why it can learn.
That it has an explanation is irrelevant to the point that the certain judgment of conscience can err.
Ender
J
JimG
Guest
In a recent essay in CWR, Germain Grisez said this: “I shall show that the “new way” for pastors to accompany and discern with remarried divorcées proposed in sections 84–86 could not deliver what such penitents would be seeking, without conniving with them to change their uncertain consciences into erroneous ones—and possibly into culpably erroneous ones.”
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4422/the_unsoundness_of_synod_2015s_new_way.aspx
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4422/the_unsoundness_of_synod_2015s_new_way.aspx
T
Thomas_White
Guest
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Hmm. Is this perchance the “new way” that others on this very thread have insisted the final synod document did not recommend? Just curious.
J
JimG
Guest
Professor Grisez’ opening paragraph indeed notes the ambiguity of the Synod’s final report. He notes that while Cardinal Kasper said that “the door has been opened” to the new way, Cardinal Pell said that the document makes “no opening” for the divorced and remarried to receive communion under a new way of discernment.Hmm. Is this perchance the “new way” that others on this very thread have insisted the final synod document did not recommend? Just curious.
His article explores the implications IF the document did indeed open the door to this new way. He makes no judgment as to whether the door has been left open or closed, but merely discusses the implications of what has been called the Kasper Proposal.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, I know. Mine was meant as a light-hearted comment. The language of paragraphs 84-86 has been variously interpreted. We will have to wait and see what happens, if anything.
E
Ender
Guest
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)
JPII explicitly rejected your interpretation, yet you continue to insist it is true.
If it is to know right from wrong…how can it ever judge wrongly? If God’s law is fully imprinted in our hearts, how can the conscience ever be mistaken? If it is of the heart and not of the head how can it learn? Yet Paul VI insists that it can learn and must be taught.
I identified exactly where you can find the citation. If you think it is out of context, show us how. You are unpersuaded by the citation, the fact that it was from JPII notwithstanding.
You speak of the judgment of conscience as if it was somehow different from the voice of the conscience. We have one conscience. It makes judgments. Those judgments may be wrong even if we are certain of them.
I always thought relying on the actual teaching of the church was a surer way of discovering the truth than making it up on my own.
Ender
- Status