Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[pnewton]

I go beyond that and in earnest I ask why we need doctrine at all? Like I said before, sola scriptura is even out the window: it’s sola conscientia.

Suddenly “spiritual but not religious” sounds like the right track: people who aren’t bound to dogmas, clericalism or rigidity but just decide case-by-case what they think is right.

Doctrine is what develops our conscience. The root of the word “doctrine” is teaching. We must be taught to dispel at least some of our ignorance, though most of us understand that the more we learn, the more we are aware of how much more we need to learn.

 

[Vico]

Interesting, what is an infallible condemnation or have I misunderstood your wording?

Oh. Well the anathema in the canon is defined as a penalty for rejection of the dogma given in the canon, and these also are described in chapters.

 

[RCinMT]

Doctrine is what develops our conscience. The root of the word “doctrine” is teaching. We must be taught to dispel at least some of our ignorance, though most of us understand that the more we learn, the more we are aware of how much more we need to learn.

This is what I always thought but I have been rebuked on these forums. I am told that conscience is supreme even if that means taking actions or holding convictions that are antithetical to Church doctrine. Further, holding such positions are valid and not sinful because we must always submit to our conscience.

Learn doctrine, let it form your conscience and then disregard it when your conscience formed by the doctrine does not consent to the doctrine. I cannot wrap my head around a concept that, in essence, says learn that one penny plus one penny equals two pennies and then disregard the knowledge when the truth of it proves disagreeable to you.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is what I always thought but I have been rebuked on these forums. I am told that conscience is supreme even if that means taking actions or holding convictions that are antithetical to Church doctrine. Further, holding such positions are valid and not sinful because we must always submit to our conscience.

Learn doctrine, let it form your conscience and then disregard it when your conscience formed by the doctrine does not consent to the doctrine. I cannot wrap my head around a concept that, in essence, says learn that one penny plus one penny equals two pennies and then disregard the knowledge when the truth of it proves disagreeable to you.

Well, your understanding of conscience is simply mistaken. Conscience is not simply learning Church doctrine. If it were, why would anyone even need a conscience when a good memory–or perhaps a good library–would suffice?

What I have often observed on the forum is the mistaken belief that CCC 1800, which says a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience, means that an informed conscience must always conform to Church teaching. This is a traditional (or conservative) interpretation of the teaching and those many comments to this effect ought to be understood in the context of their time–it was then a convenient interpretation. But times have changed.

Amoris Latetia is a formal teaching of the Church. Suppose a priest in Malta decides, as the result of the certain judgment of his conscience-which in accordance with CCC 1800 he must obey–is that it would be wrong for him to permit a person in a “irregular” marriage to receive communion? What should he do?

 

[RCinMT]

Well, your understanding of conscience is simply mistaken. Conscience is not simply learning Church doctrine. If it were, why would anyone even need a conscience when a good memory–or perhaps a good library–would suffice?

What I have often observed on the forum is the mistaken belief that CCC 1800, which says a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience, means that an informed conscience must always conform to Church teaching. This is a traditional (or conservative) interpretation of the teaching and those many comments to this effect ought to be understood in the context of their time–it was then a convenient interpretation. But times have changed.

Amoris Latetia is a formal teaching of the Church. Suppose a priest in Malta decides, as the result of the certain judgment of his conscience-which in accordance with CCC 1800 he must obey–is that it would be wrong for him to permit a person in a “irregular” marriage to receive communion? What should he do?

Them my understanding is correct:
Church teaching is A. I learn Church teaching, contemplate what it means. My conscience tells me Church teaching is wrong. I follow my conscience.

On how many issues is this to occur before one decides that he/she is not a Catholic because their conscience tells them all Church teaching is disagreeable?

Where is the point at which one can no longer claim to be Catholic? If the Church says something is evil and must always be opposed but my conscience says otherwise, it’s okay to disobey the teaching, right?

So ask I again, if I am free to disregard any doctrine that I just cannot consent to, what good is doctrine at all?

 

[pnewton]

Amoris Latetia is a formal teaching of the Church. Suppose a priest in Malta decides, as the result of the certain judgment of his conscience-which in accordance with CCC 1800 he must obey–is that it would be wrong for him to permit a person in a “irregular” marriage to receive communion? What should he do?

He would have to obey tat conscience. We receive communion. We do not take. For a person to receive communion he also needs a priest that will administer it.

 

[Vico]

Them my understanding is correct:
Church teaching is A. I learn Church teaching, contemplate what it means. My conscience tells me Church teaching is wrong. I follow my conscience.

On how many issues is this to occur before one decides that he/she is not a Catholic because their conscience tells them all Church teaching is disagreeable?

Where is the point at which one can no longer claim to be Catholic? If the Church says something is evil and must always be opposed but my conscience says otherwise, it’s okay to disobey the teaching, right?

So ask I again, if I am free to disregard any doctrine that I just cannot consent to, what good is doctrine at all?

Note: mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience.

Catechism
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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve thought for some time that in the end the controversy over AL would inevitably lead to CCC 1800: “A person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” Though the language is plain, clear and unambiguous, there have been discussions on several threads where those of a more or less fundamentalist viewpoint have attempted to render this language to mean that what the certain judgment of conscience must obey is existing Church teaching. As Pope Benedict XVI has made clear, this is not so, but for the few even his teaching has made no difference. Perhaps nothing will.

So what would be the point of further clarification of AL?

Bump

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, getting back to the thread title, Cardinal Gerhard Müller …

Actually its also “Re: Malta archbishop defends Amoris Laetitia guidelines” due to merging .

 

[RCinMT]

Note: mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience.

Catechism
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.

Hmmmm…how would a person know when he/she had been mistaken?

 

[RCinMT]

Bump

Interesting post to bump. So it begs a question I hope you can answer: why do we need the Bible or Church doctrine at all? Or better, why bother learning it when it all boils down to doing whatever we can rationalize on good conscience?

For instance, if Hitler truly thought he was doing what was right and just, is he not liable for the murders he ordered committed? Was he actually doing what he should by obeying his conscience?

If possible I would appreciate simple yes or no answers.

 

[pnewton]

Note: mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience.

I am glad you mentioned this. While we are obliged to obey our conscience, we are not to consider our conscience, that is our own beliefs and opinion, autonomous. That is why we have an obligation also to learn.

For a Catholic, if one disagrees with what the Church is teaching, then the obligation is to obey one’s conscience while being an open student of Church teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Doctrine is what develops our conscience. The root of the word “doctrine” is teaching. We must be taught to dispel at least some of our ignorance, though most of us understand that the more we learn, the more we are aware of how much more we need to learn.

I would add that there are various approaches to leaning what we are taught.
When we are young we are encouraged simply to learn the rules and materially obey because that makes life easy for “the big people”.

However as we approach the age of reason and eventually become adults we must surely start personally, actively and critically engaging with the material we are given rather than simply accept out of blind obedience without really understanding. And it also means developing a relationship with the “teacher” instead of regarding them as a remote and infallible wizard of Oz type figure.

So teaching is more than “doctrine”;
disciple-ship (Latin for student) more than discipline.

That is why it is interesting when some ask what is the point of doctrine if conscience may allow us to act contrary. It is not an unusual question.

The point is not simply to hear and obey…there is far more to it than that.
Unfortunately some are somehow brought up to feel that if it isn’t about hearing and obeying army style then what other use is there for Church teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Oh. Well the anathema in the canon is defined as a penalty for rejection of the dogma given in the canon, and these also are described in chapters.

What is an infallible penalty then?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interesting post to bump. So it begs a question I hope you can answer: why do we need the Bible or Church doctrine at all? Or better, why bother learning it when it all boils down to doing whatever we can rationalize on good conscience?

For instance, if Hitler truly thought he was doing what was right and just, is he not liable for the murders he ordered committed? Was he actually doing what he should by obeying his conscience?

If possible I would appreciate simple yes or no answers.

Feel free to ask the bumpee.
From forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14422623&postcount=972
which you didn’t respond to and your above comments it seems unlikely you seek enough to have your “confusions” relieved. *
“So what would be the point of further clarification”* as the bumpee above rightly states.

 

[Abba]

Eureka, eureka, eureka! :newidea: How to biblically harmonize Amoris Laetitia the answer is King David and Bathsheba! I was falling asleep and I was wondering about how it could biblically be harmonized. in my mind, I started with Genesis and considered Adam and Eve and moved on to Cain and Abel etc… and then Boom! King David and Bathsheba. Okay, I am going back to bed now. :yawn:

Of course, the task is out for someone to write up a good theological demonstration of how AL is grounded in doctrine and is in continuity with JPII. Of course, there are other biblical connections as well and there is the whole understanding of mercy and Jesus going to the sinners.

 

[Vico]

What is an infallible penalty then?

Infallibility is freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. A penalty is not a teaching but a penalty may be given for rejection of a teaching.

 

[Vico]

Hmmmm…how would a person know when he/she had been mistaken?

Catechism

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

 

[Pulvis]

From Ed Peters. interesting.

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/three-ways-to-not-deal-with-canon-915/

“Any canonist citing canon law in defense of doctrine or discipline these days should expect to be compared to a Pharisee and tritely accused of ‘throwing the law at pastoral problems’. Antinomianism, you see, which has taken hold in many places, routinely regards the invocation of inconvenient laws as an act of moral violence and usually views lawyers as hypocrites suffering from psychological disorders. Oh well, let’s talk about a canonical issue with profound implications for the Church in our day, shall we?”