Chicago's Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but person's conscience inviolable

[Mongo]

Conscience isn’t innate, it is a category of logic and reason. A baby is born selfish with no concern for anything but it’s own pleasure or satisfaction. Conscience is formed through the teaching of parents and learning throughout life. It is learning how to respond in particular situations based on principles learned. In other words, it isn’t an infused knowledge. You don’t just happen to know how to respond in a particular situation: you know from experience and learning. Consequently it is a limited form of knowledge, that is limited by the boundaries of a persons experience.

It’s value in philosophy and theology is in that it provides an explanation of the relation to the universal principles and particular situations, as well as providing an argue lament against compulsion. A man can’t be compelled to act against his conscience.

It also must be recognized that the precepts of morality are negative commands. The moral law doesn’t say you must do this or do that, but rather you must not do this and you must not do that. Conscience is similar in that it’s commands are negative.

 

[ProVobis]

The words “should” and “as far as possible” are not synomomous with “must”. This teaching is carefully worded exegesis and provides a useful guide, and it is worded as it is for good reason.

You are right that “must” and “should” are not synonymous. But this is an English distinction. Latin, for example, uses a “oportet sit” which translates to somewhere in between “must” and “should.” Therefore you can’t say that this teaching is carefully worded if you’re only looking only at the English.

 

[Thomas_White]

But if you were to ask Huck, he would say he didn’t reason it through. He just decided to violate his conscience and accept the consequences. According to Aquinas, he would be morally culpable for violating a misinformed conscience.

Well, did you ask Huck? What matters is Huck followed the certain judgment of his conscience and did the right thing. That Huck’s doing the right thing by following the certain judgment of his conscience could have been a moral fault certainly requires an explanation. Are we now to understand Huck as doing what “sounds like a rather Protestant thing” when he did the right thing? We are grasping at straws where there are none to grasp.

 

[JimG]

Well, did you ask Huck? What matters is Huck followed the certain judgment of his conscience and did the right thing. That Huck’s doing the right thing by following the certain judgment of his conscience could have been a moral fault certainly requires an explanation. Are we now to understand Huck as doing what “sounds like a rather Protestant thing” when he did the right thing? We are grasping at straws where there are none to grasp.

How certain could Huck have been about his decision, which you here equate with the “certain decision of his conscience,” if he thought he was going to hell for it? If Huck had decided that his moral imperative was to return Jim to slavery, would you say that was the “certain decision of his conscience?” How would you distinguish one decision from the other except to say that one decision agrees with your conscience.

And would you say that God infallibly informs the conscience but not the magisterium?

 

[LongingSoul]

But if you were to ask Huck, he would say he didn’t reason it through. He just decided to violate his conscience and accept the consequences. According to Aquinas, he would be morally culpable for violating a misinformed conscience.

So, if the catechism says that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience,” Huck committed a moral fault here.

Now the out, of course, is to say that wasn’t really his conscience speaking. But he thought it was.

I haven’t actually read Huckleberry Finn but going by what you relayed…“Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma.”… he was actively engaging his conscience in a debate concerning morality. His knowledge base had the information that to set a slave free is an offense against God, but his conscience was debating the morality of it. He makes a decision based on this inner debate looking for the good and in saying ‘even if I go to hell’ could be simply a reflection of how hell was perceived in those days as a place rather than a ‘state’

St JPII said "hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".’ ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM#Hell

In retrospect we now know that releasing a slave was not intrinsically evil and Hucks inner debate was consistent with legitimate moral evaluation.

And if we are going to say that the moral judgment of conscience can be opposite of the Church’s moral teaching, we are saying that God can hand on his word wrongly to the Church Jesus founded, but he can never err in informing any individual person’s conscience. Sounds rather like a Protestant thing to assert: the Church is fallible but human conscience is infallible.

In matters of discipline, it often comes about that the lay people and low ranking clergy are the impetus behind a reexamination of how the doctrine is expressed in the light of the times. The Church has been gradually affirming the negative influence of culture and other ideologies on faith and the place of personal culpability in it’s concept of mortal sin over time. We the people have been gradually acknowledged as part of the universal priesthood and a vital part of our priesthood is our conscience.

 

[Kurisu35712]

No. As CCC 1776 explains, God’s law is inscribed on the conscience. The conscience is innate and inherently a part of man’s nature.

I understand that. But this phrasing you’re using gives me the impression that, as God’s law is inscribed on one’s conscience, that when one’s conscience is at odds with God’s Church, it is one’s conscience that is right, and not the Church. This to me is incorrect. I’m probably misinterpreting what you’re saying.

No, and this is not the teaching of the Church. This is not to say Catholic teaching is not formative with respect to adhering to Catholic teaching. It certainly ought to be for a Catholic, **but it is learned behavior, ** and this is the critical difference. For a given person, it is the difference between heredity and environment. It is difficult to grasp, but to say that the environment is the determinative factor is what results in moral relativism, and in consequence there are inevitably endless disputes about what is good and what is evil. It is the philosophical perspective of secularism, and I say this charitably in an attempt to explain.

I feel like we’re talking past each other on this part of the post. Obviously a Catholic’s conscience should be formed in accordance with Catholic doctrine. I’m not saying it’s the atheist’s fault if their conscience leads them to act in opposition to the Church. No one expects them to act in accordance with a religion they don’t practice, that would be illogical. But abortion, for example, is still a sin for an atheist who has never been exposed to Catholic teaching, even if their conscience leads them to believe that it is acceptable. It isn’t necessarily mortally sinful, presuming it doesn’t meet the criteria necessary, but for a person to have an abortion is still a choice against God’s will, regardless of whether or not they understand that to be the case. If the Church teaches God’s will and holds the fullness of truth, then logically speaking, unless one arrives at the exact same conclusions as the Church on an issue, their conscience is improperly formed. Whether they are culpable for sins resulting from this is a separate issue.

Should a priest tell a person to kill someone, I am sure a secular atheiest would know as well as anyone else that this was wrong. It would be a very perilous world indeed if humans did not know, as a result of conscience, that murder is wrong. Would a legitimate defense against the charge of murder be that the defendant had no knowledge of Catholic teaching? Consider for a moment ISIS and the wanton killing of Christians. Is this behavior inherent in the nature of every person in this group? Or is it learned behavior that is malleable?

Sure. An atheist knows that murder is wrong, even if they didn’t learn that from the Church. Hence God’s law being written on their conscience. But that was an extreme example to make a point. Does everyone inherently know that abortion is wrong? I guess you’re saying that everyone is born knowing abortion to be wrong, and that it is repeated exposure to the contrary that leads them to believe it to be right and acceptable?

It is safe to say that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law and the important factor of conscience cannot be known with respect to a given person, i.e., how such a person truly feels about having an abortion. To act against conscience certainly does occur, and I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.

I still say that if a person’s conscience leads them to believe that abortion is not wrong, it is still wrong to have an abortion despite their belief to the contrary. Believing ourselves to be right doesn’t make it so, and abortion is still a sin even if this specific person isn’t mortally culpable for it. If your point is that the conscience does not naturally lead one to believe this, then I can see where you’re coming from.

With all due respect, what was presented in the comment pretty well provides the perspective of legalism. I would not usually respond in such a direct fashion, but it is a question that today is a serious discussion within the Church.

I think I’m still confused.

 

[Thomas_White]

How certain could Huck have been about his decision, which you here equate with the “certain decision of his conscience,” if he thought he was going to hell for it? If Huck had decided that his moral imperative was to return Jim to slavery, would you say that was the “certain decision of his conscience?” How would you distinguish one decision from the other except to say that one decision agrees with your conscience.

What Huck says and does suggests he follows the certain judgment of his conscience. However, the story is fictional and to ask how certain Huck was in his decision is to inquire about something that was not there and only implied in the narrative. And it truly was not there since the story is fictional. It did not actually exist, and this is a technique of fiction writers where the reader is left to grasp an unspoken truth. In the fictional story as it is told, I believe Huck did the right thing. That’s all. Mark Twain was either successful in what he attempted or he was not. I think he was successful.

And would you say that God infallibly informs the conscience but not the magisterium?

It is not the teaching that God infallibly informs the conscience, but rather that God’s law is inscribed on the conscience of man. It is thus present for discernment and the certain judgment of conscience. The Apostolic teaching is certainly not questioned as it was handed down to the Church, though Dei Verbum teaches that man’s understanding of Apostolic teaching will advance until the end of time. In that way, man’s understanding of Apostolic teaching could not be said to be infallible over time with respect to the past.

How would I distinguish one decision from another except to say one decision agrees with my conscience? That is a rather large exception, isn’t it, in the judgment of right and wrong? In my specific case, however, Catholic teaching is no mystery. The sort of question here, insofar as it concerns Catholic teaching, would have a pretty remote chance of occurrance, I think.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Conscience and Communion

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/conscience-and-communion

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand that. But this phrasing you’re using gives me the impression that, as God’s law is inscribed on one’s conscience, that when one’s conscience is at odds with God’s Church, it is one’s conscience that is right, and not the Church. This to me is incorrect. I’m probably misinterpreting what you’re saying.

What is imperative is that God’s law cannot err, and this is now stipulated for the sake of discussion. CCC 1800 provides that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” So, this moral imperative is also stipulated on this end of the discussion.

I am sure a person can err by following his beliefs, but what is difficult to understand is why a person must follow the certain judgment of his conscience. It is either that the certain judgment of conscience, in accordance with God’s law inscribed on it, cannot err, or that it is invariably wrong for a person to disobey the certain judgment of conscience. But if it is invariably wrong to disobey the certain judgment of conscience, the implication is that doing so is to disobey God’s law inscribed on the conscience. Perhaps this was why St. Thomas Aquinas said that should a man disobey the certain judgment of conscience it “certainly dooms him”. It would be the direct disobedience of God’s law.

I feel like we’re talking past each other on this part of the post. Obviously a Catholic’s conscience should be formed in accordance with Ciatholic doctrine. I’m not saying it’s the atheist’s fault if their conscience leads them to act in opposition to the Church. No one expects them to act in accordance with a religion they don’t practice, that would be illogical. But abortion, for example, is still a sin for an atheist who has never been exposed to Catholic teaching, even if their conscience leads them to believe that it is acceptable. It isn’t necessarily mortally sinful, presuming it doesn’t meet the criteria necessary, but for a person to have an abortion is still a choice against God’s will, regardless of whether or not they understand that to be the case. If the Church teaches God’s will and holds the fullness of truth, then logically speaking, unless one arrives at the exact same conclusions as the Church on an issue, their conscience is improperly formed. Whether they are culpable for sins resulting from this is a separate issue.

I would say that while the belief of an atheist could be determinative with respect to abortion, belief does not speak of conscience. If a person, with respect to conscience, knows right from wrong, why then is it presumed they would not know (on some level) that abortion is wrong? I believe it is this that is illogical and also why abortion is a sin.

What would follow from the Church’s teaching about God’s will and the fullness of truth seems a mystery with respect to CCC 1800 if the certain judgment of conscience is not in accord with teaching. However, the fullness of divine revelation has not yet been revealed and its fullness will remain veiled until the end of time. I believe this is important with respect to why Pope Benedict XVI said that the certain judgment of conscience must be followed even if it disagrees with Church teaching (in fact, even if it disagrees with papal teaching and ecclesiastical authority). Dei Vervum also teaches that divine revelation is open to an inspired individual and that revelation will continue until the end of time. All there is to know of revelation is not yet known, not even by the Church. Pope Benedict said (I believe in ‘God and the World’) that to each generation a bit more is revealed.

Sure. An atheist knows that murder is wrong, even if they didn’t learn that from the Church. Hence God’s law being written on their conscience. But that was an extreme example to make a point. Does everyone inherently know that abortion is wrong? I guess you’re saying that everyone is born knowing abortion to be wrong, and that it is repeated exposure to the contrary that leads them to believe it to be right and acceptable?

I would think that nearly every person, absent a major psychological issue, knows on some level that abortion is wrong. This could of course be rationalized or similarly denied, and no doubt it often is.

I still say that if a person’s conscience leads them to believe that abortion is not wrong, it is still wrong to have an abortion despite their belief to the contrary. Believing ourselves to be right doesn’t make it so, and abortion is still a sin even if this specific person isn’t mortally culpable for it. If your point is that the conscience does not naturally lead one to believe this, then I can see where you’re coming from.

I think I’m still confused.

Of course abortion is wrong, whether or not there is belief to the contrary notwithstanding. I think it is learning and not conscience that would result in a person believing abortion was not wrong. This is the question of heredity vs. environment, where conscience is inherently inscribed with God’s law as part of the God-given nature of man. Perhaps it would prove helpful to remember here that each person will stand alone for judgment. It seems to me this why the Church teaches that, ultimately, it is the certain judgment of conscience that a person must obey.

 

[JimG]

Conscience and Communion

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/conscience-and-communion

Thanks for the link. The article is a quite cogent analysis of the matter.

 

[JimG]

Here is another article about conscience.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/more-than-a-feeling

 

[JimG]

It is not the teaching that God infallibly informs the conscience, but rather that God’s law is inscribed on the conscience of man. It is thus present for discernment and the certain judgment of conscience. The Apostolic teaching is certainly not questioned as it was handed down to the Church, though Dei Verbum teaches that man’s understanding of Apostolic teaching will advance until the end of time. In that way, man’s understanding of Apostolic teaching could not be said to be infallible over time with respect to the past.

What is the content of the divine law which is inscribed on the conscience of man? It is the full moral law? Or is it the implicit realization that one must do good and avoid evil? Is this content infused at conception, at birth, during the toddler or teen years, or only in adulthood?

How would I distinguish one decision from another except to say one decision agrees with my conscience? That is a rather large exception, isn’t it, in the judgment of right and wrong? In my specific case, however, Catholic teaching is no mystery. The sort of question here, insofar as it concerns Catholic teaching, would have a pretty remote chance of occurrance, I think.

The question however, would apply to any moral decision if there is more than one choice. How do you know which one is an erroneous judgment and which one is a certain judgment of conscience?

Actually I agree that one must follow the certain judgments of conscience. However I place the emphasis on the word “certain.” And a decision of conscience which contradicts church teaching can be pretty much assured to be uncertain, because conscience is not a license for dissent.

As to the Apostolic teaching handed down from Christ to the Apostles and then to us, certainly our understanding can always improve. But the Apostolic teaching itself does not change. The content of revelation closed with the death of the last apostle.

 

[Thomas_White]

What is the content of the divine law which is inscribed on the conscience of man? It is the full moral law? Or is it the implicit realization that one must do good and avoid evil? Is this content infused at conception, at birth, during the toddler or teen years, or only in adulthood?

What is the content of the divine law inscribed on the conscience of man?* Why are you asking me?*

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling to 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…" (CCC 1776).

Is it this you dispute?

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually I agree that one must follow the certain judgments of conscience. However I place the emphasis on the word “certain.” And a decision of conscience which contradicts church teaching can be pretty much assured to be uncertain, because conscience is not a license for dissent.

I don’t believe that that is the case. A person could have a strong conviction about the good of an action, resulting from a thorough exercise of a still forming conscience… and is bound to act on it even if it contradicts Church teaching. It’s the exercise of that faculty which is vital to conscience growth rather than the perfection of the choice. So like a child learning to walk it is important that they try to exercise the faculty even though they fail and fall over.

 

[I_trust]

I don’t believe that that is the case. A person could have a strong conviction about the good of an action, resulting from a thorough exercise of a still forming conscience… and is bound to act on it even if it contradicts Church teaching. It’s the exercise of that faculty which is vital to conscience growth rather than the perfection of the choice. So like a child learning to walk it is important that they try to exercise the faculty even though they fail and fall over.

People living in an objectively sinful situation whose conscience indicates to them that they are able to receive Holy Communion are “responsible” for an “erroneous conscience” and need help to “realize their condition,” stated Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.

Arinze, who is the prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, was reacting to an argument made last week by a Synod Father that the divorced and remarried, and even homosexual couples, should be permitted to receive Holy Communion, if they have “come to a decision” to do so "in good conscience.”…

Arinze said that one’s conscience must to be trained in the ways of the Lord to make correct judgements.

CCC Paragraph 1790: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”

Arinze: “Which means, conscience does not make objective right and wrong, but only directs the person in what the person should do or not do. That conscience has to be educated, trained, if you wish,” he said.

CCC Paragraph 1791: “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.’ In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.”

Arinze: “That means it isn’t enough that conscience says, ‘I can do this’ if that conscience has been made blind by repeated acts that are evil. Then the person is responsible for that erroneous conscience. That is also clear,” he said.

Source:
lifesitenews.com/news/video-cardinal-arinze-rejects-effort-at-synod-to-excuse-objectively-evil-ac

 

[LongingSoul]

People living in an objectively sinful situation whose conscience indicates to them that they are able to receive Holy Communion are “responsible” for an “erroneous conscience” and need help to “realize their condition,” stated Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.

The aspect that is being raised over the last 40 years and by the current synod members, is whether there is a case for invincible ignorance in present day situations where a person is baptised, married in the sacrament but without a faith, divorced, remarried and then drawn by some grace into the faith. They are now in a situation that canon law has no nuanced explanation for. Not qualifying as null yet being lived in a now alive faith in every way but behind an impenetrable glass wall.

The question being asked is does this situation have something new to teach us in regards to the nature of full sacramental marriage. We know how things stand theologically at the present time, but examining the tension around the situation for deeper theologically meaning may reveal a better way. Maybe it won’t but Pope Francis has invited the question into the light for a fearless look.

 

[Thomas_White]

Source:
lifesitenews.com/news/video-cardinal-arinze-rejects-effort-at-synod-to-excuse-objectively-evil-ac

I believe the teaching is correct but what is said about conscience is not stated properly. To be sure, the law of God inscribed in man’s heart hardly needs to be educated. The outcome, however, would be the same for a given person, and this reveals something about the nature of this discussion. The entire dispute here, as I understand it, concerns whether or not the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even if it contradicts Church teaching. That this is itself Church teaching presents a paradox when it is disputed on the grounds that a person cannot be correct when acting contrary to church teaching. Nevertheless, it is the argument that the certain judgment of conscience must agree with Church teaching that I would describe as legalism (not to mention that this itself disagrees with Church teaching).

 

[graciew]

I am sure a person can err by following his beliefs, but what is difficult to understand is why a person must follow the certain judgment of his conscience. It is either that the certain judgment of conscience, in accordance with God’s law inscribed on it, cannot err, or that it is invariably wrong for a person to disobey the certain judgment of conscience. But if it is invariably wrong to disobey the certain judgment of conscience, the implication is that doing so is to disobey God’s law inscribed on the conscience. Perhaps this was why St. Thomas Aquinas said that should a man disobey the certain judgment of conscience it “certainly dooms him”. It would be the direct disobedience of God’s law.

I would say that while the belief of an atheist could be determinative with respect to abortion, belief does not speak of conscience. If a person, with respect to conscience, knows right from wrong, why then is it presumed they would not know (on some level) that abortion is wrong? I believe it is this that is illogical and also why abortion is a sin.

What would follow from the Church’s teaching about God’s will and the fullness of truth seems a mystery with respect to CCC 1800 if the certain judgment of conscience is not in accord with teaching. However, the fullness of divine revelation has not yet been revealed and its fullness will remain veiled until the end of time. I believe this is important with respect to why Pope Benedict XVI said that the certain judgment of conscience must be followed even if it disagrees with Church teaching (in fact, even if it disagrees with papal teaching and ecclesiastical authority). Dei Vervum also teaches that divine revelation is open to an inspired individual and that revelation will continue until the end of time. All there is to know of revelation is not yet known, not even by the Church. Pope Benedict said (I believe in ‘God and the World’) that to each generation a bit more is revealed.

I think it is learning and not conscience that would result in a person believing abortion was not wrong. This is the question of heredity vs. environment, where conscience is inherently inscribed with God’s law as part of the God-given nature of man. Perhaps it would prove helpful to remember here that each person will stand alone for judgment. It seems to me this why the Church teaches that, ultimately, it is the certain judgment of conscience that a person must obey.

Something still rattles me here.
I read all the articles in the CCC and I find them coherent. And not acting against Church ,Magisterium or the Pope .Nothing rattles me when I read the CCC.in the context of the Vocation to Beautitude
Neither with St Augustine and that memory of God he talks about. And what I learnt about good and Good from him. Plus St Teresa of Avila.
Is the primacy of conscience that anamnesis Ratzinger talked about to? If it is ,the Church,Magisterium and Pope draw from that Truth and Good which is in turn within us and help us draw ourselves. It is hard for me to put it down…But how can one separate Jesus from His Church?
Sharing. Maybe re reading all the articles again helps. You may see sth I am failing to see perhaps. Maybe I just cannot follow you.
When you say " certain" judgement in English do you mean " the correct one",like being assertive?

 

[Megan7]

A properly formed conscience is one which incorporates the objective moral law into its judgments. And it is, of course, the responsibility of everyone to have a properly formed conscience. Because a poorly formed conscience can lead us astray. A conscience which judges an evil action to be good or neutral is just as dangerous as a loaded weapon in the hands of an emotionally unstable person.

Here is one of my favorite Cardinals with the TRUTH!! God bless Cardinal ARINZE!!

"People living in an objectively sinful situation whose conscience indicates to them that they are able to receive Holy Communion are “responsible” for an “ERRONEOUS conscience” and need HELP to “realize their condition,” stated CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE of Nigeria in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.”

“Arinze said that one’s conscience must to be trained in the ways of the Lord to make correct judgements.”

“Conscience, according to Catholic teaching, is the dictate — immediate — of what is to be done or not to be done. Conscience directs the individual. Nevertheless, conscience has to be EDUCATED to see the ways of God, the COMMANDMENTS of God, as authentically interpreted by the Church, which means conscience has to be EDUCATED, has to be **TRAINED **,”

"The objective norm of right and wrong is God’s eternal wisdom, inserted in human nature, which we call natural law,” he said.

Video of the interview below:
youtube.com/watch?v=FU3AT5xm3dw

voiceofthefamily.com/cardinal-arinze-people-in-objectively-sinful-situation-cannot-receive-communion-in-good-conscience/

 

[Ender]

Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

Under the assumption that what is right is whatever one’s conscience perceives it to be, Huck does the “right” thing no matter what choice he makes. He’s trying to do the right thing here, so no matter whether he goes forward or turns back, if he does what he thinks is right he has by definition done the right thing. Nor can anyone else condemn his choice since the act itself cannot be judged; only his conscience matters and no one else can judge that.

It is only if one accepts that right and wrong exist independently of the individual’s perception that it is possible to believe that morality even exists.

Ender