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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Yet one more article about conscience:
crisismagazine.com/2015/an-archbishop-and-the-catholic-conscience
Click to expand...
The article argues that moral truth is found in the natural law and can be known by reason, and that this “simple truth” leads to profound conclusions about conscience–that is, conscience does not create its own truth. Primacy of conscience, therefore, makes no sense unless “conscience’s authority” is derived from a person’s responsibility to know and live in the truth of both divine and natural law. This is not the teaching of the catechism, where “conscience’s authority” is God’s law inscribed on the conscience.

The article next notes that the Catechism provides that “a good and true conscience is enlightened by true faith” (CCC 1794). It is explained that this is not a subjective faith in God’s law (what is inscribed on the conscience) but a faith in Church teaching (which is objective knowledge learned by reason). As objective knowledge becomes (inexplicably) a matter of faith, the argument concludes that conscience must obey Church teaching (objective knowledge that is knowable by reason). It is argued that a “true conscience” is enlightened by Church teaching and, again, not God’s law inscribed on it. This is said to concern the primacy of the objective knowledge of Church teaching and the articulate defense of the Apostolic teaching on faith and morals and its implications on man’s conscience. To fail to recognize this is to risk an “exultation of subjectivity over truth”, that is, truth is what is knowable objectively and not faith in God’s law inscribed on the conscience.

While faith in Church teaching is essential, it is not the same thing as the certain judgment of conscience. In this construct, the certain judgement of conscience that hears’s God’s law inscribed on it vanishes. While this theme has become common, it Is not the teaching of the catechism on conscience.
 
Thomas_White said:
While faith in Church teaching is essential, it is not the same thing as the certain judgment of conscience. In this construct, the certain judgement of conscience that hears’s God’s law inscribed on it vanishes. While this theme has become common, it Is not the teaching of the catechism on conscience.
Click to expand...
The article did not claim that the faith in Church teaching and conscience are the same thing.

They are, however, deeply intertwinded. Being an exercise of Reason, the a certain judgement of conscience MUST be based on truth. When the Church teaches on a matter of faith and morals, it does so with certitude, and it a true articulation of the law of God.

Any judgement of conscience that is in opposition to such truth, has no certitude, as there is no infallible basis for the judgement.

In addition, the truths taught by the Church regarding faith and morals, are, by definition, the law of God. They have God as their authority, not the Church. Ergo, the law of God written on the hearts cannot be in conflict with the moral and faith teachings of the Church.
 
Brendan said:
The article did not claim that the faith in Church teaching and conscience are the same thing.

They are, however, deeply intertwinded. Being an exercise of Reason, the a certain judgement of conscience MUST be based on truth. When the Church teaches on a matter of faith and morals, it does so with certitude, and it a true articulation of the law of God.

Any judgement of conscience that is in opposition to such truth, has no certitude, as there is no infallible basis for the judgement.

In addition, the truths taught by the Church regarding faith and morals, are, by definition, the law of God. They have God as their authority, not the Church. Ergo, the law of God written on the hearts cannot be in conflict with the moral and faith teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
If this is indeed correct, one does wonder what Joseph Ratzinger was thinking when he said what he did in the quote you provided in your comment #233.
 
sarah_j said:
Another article on conscience. >

voiceofthefamily.com/the-divorced-and-remarried-must-be-refused-holy-communion-their-consciences-do-not-bind-that-of-their-pastor/
Click to expand...
The article attempts to explain that CCC 1793 provides that "the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment where Original Sin has “darkened our mind and weakened our wills”. It is a “disorder”. Therefore, the divorced and remarried must be refused communion. This is not a persuasive argument.

It seems to me that this and several other articles provided, though well intended, do not serve the Church with respect to the teaching that the divorced and remarried who have not received an annullment are not permitted to receive Holy Communion. That a person should not receive Holy Communion while in the state of grave sin would seem a far better argument.
 
Mr. White,
Code: 
From what I have been reading here one of the main thrusts of your argument seems to be that conscience cannot err, because it is the divine law inscribed on the human heart. how would you respond to CCC 1786 which says:
TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them
 
AndrewZ22 said:
Mr. White,
Code: 
From what I have been reading here one of the main thrusts of your argument seems to be that conscience cannot err, because it is the divine law inscribed on the human heart. how would you respond to CCC 1786 which says:
TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them
Click to expand...
If it even is an argument, it relies on what is provided in #'s 1776 and 1800 of the CCC as well as what Joseph Ratziner has said and subsequently reaffirmed as Pope Benedict XVI. Nothing I have said was meant to be any sort of original argument of my own.
 
gilliam said:
Which I think is where spiritual direction comes in during the Internal Forum.

pbs.twimg.com/media/CR6r3hiWUAACBFQ.jpg:large
Click to expand...
Thanks for the informative comment. The CIC is the code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite. Insofar as the divorced and remarried without an annullment receiving communion is concerned, the internal forum is in essence no longer recognized.

What is at the core of the discussion, as it concerns Holy Communion, is the question of whether the internal state of grave sin can be objectively known by the presumption of another person. In this instance, the presumption relies on the objective fact of the second marriage. To maintain the argument, the objective fact of the second marriage alone becomes ipso facto adultery. It is an argument than cannot be logically maintained, and it would seem better to say a person in the state of grave sin should not receive Holy Communion for that reason, a reason that is Church doctrine.
 
I don’t get what all the fuss is about. Well-formed conscience is not infused by God. It is hammered out and formed in all the many ways. 🤷
 
God’s law does not err, but conscience can and does make erroneous judgments, because judgments of conscience are human judgments, not divine judgments.
 
Thomas_White said:
Thanks for the informative comment. The CIC is the code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite. Insofar as the divorced and remarried without an annullment receiving communion is concerned, the internal forum is in essence no longer recognized.

What is at the core of the discussion, as it concerns Holy Communion, is the question of whether the internal state of grave sin can be objectively known by the presumption of another person. In this instance, the presumption relies on the objective fact of the second marriage. To maintain the argument, the objective fact of the second marriage alone becomes ipso facto adultery. It is an argument than cannot be logically maintained, and it would seem better to say a person in the state of grave sin should not receive Holy Communion for that reason, a reason that is Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
That’s why we rely on the Magistarium to guide us in this matter.
 
AndrewZ22 said:
Mr. White,
Code: 
From what I have been reading here one of the main thrusts of your argument seems to be that conscience cannot err, because it is the divine law inscribed on the human heart. how would you respond to CCC 1786 which says:
TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them
Click to expand...
To further clarify, the CCC is not wrong. In serveral articles that links were provided for, reason and not God’s law inscribed on the conscience becomes the source of divine law. This is an entirely different philosophical issue concerning objective Immanence where even Apostolic preaching is superceded, and in the articles I read this proposition becomes confused with Church teaching (and hence with Apostolic preaching).

Of course reason plays a role if the certain judgment of conscience is to be understood, but this understanding might not and need not be in awareness at the moment, as in the example in the thread concerning Huck Finn.
 
Thomas_White said:
Thanks for the informative comment. The CIC is the code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite. Insofar as the divorced and remarried without an annullment receiving communion is concerned, the internal forum is in essence no longer recognized.

What is at the core of the discussion, as it concerns Holy Communion, is the question of whether the internal state of grave sin can be objectively known by the presumption of another person. In this instance, the presumption relies on the objective fact of the second marriage. To maintain the argument, the objective fact of the second marriage alone becomes ipso facto adultery. It is an argument than cannot be logically maintained, and it would seem better to say a person in the state of grave sin should not receive Holy Communion for that reason, a reason that is Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Of course, the second marriage is an objective fact, as is the fact of the existence of the first marriage with no declaration of nullity. The presumption of an adulterous relationship is based on what Jesus said about divorce.

Given the objective facts of the first marriage, the absence of a decree of nullity, and the second marriage, on what basis would the couple determine that no state of adultery exists other than the fact, known to them, that no sexual relations are taking place?

But if that is the case, the Church has already made provision for receiving communion in such instances. So what is the problem?
 
JimG said:
Of course, the second marriage is an objective fact, as is the fact of the existence of the first marriage with no declaration of nullity. The presumption of an adulterous relationship is based on what Jesus said about divorce.
Click to expand...
The validity of the first marriage with no decree of nullity is itself a presumption if in fact the first marriage was never valid. Could you please provide where it says in Matthew, Mark or Luke that Jesus says a second marriage is itself adultery?
JimG said:
Given the objective facts of the first marriage, the absence of a decree of nullity, and the second marriage, on what basis would the couple determine that no state of adultery exists other than the fact, known to them, that no sexual relations are taking place?
Click to expand...
Other than the fact that no sexual relations (and hence adultery) are taking place? What other fact might there be?

Though the objective facts of the first marriage are in doubt (as a presumption) when an annullment has not been sought, that sexual relations (i.e., adultery) are not taking place clearly means that a presumption that they are taking place is false.
JimG said:
But if that is the case, the Church has already made provision for receiving communion in such instances. So what is the problem?
Click to expand...
First, I would not agree that a person in grave sin should be permitted to receive communion. This is Church doctrine. (I would again note none of this is of personal concern.) But with respect to the question before the synod, and where sexual relations might be taking place, the uncertain issue of the validity of the first marriage and who would properly know this and how, is the potential problem. As the synod seems to have already in part recognized, many such Catholics are unwilling to endure what they perceive as the marriage tribunal process. And this involves the conscience in several ways. Pretty much all of it is an issue.
 
Thomas_White said:
The validity of the first marriage with no decree of nullity is itself a presumption if in fact the first marriage was never valid. Could you please provide where it says in Matthew, Mark or Luke that Jesus says a second marriage is itself adultery?

Other than the fact that no sexual relations (and hence adultery) are taking place? What other fact might there be?

Though the objective facts of the first marriage are in doubt (as a presumption) when an annullment has not been sought, that sexual relations (i.e., adultery) are not taking place clearly means that a presumption that they are taking place is false.

First, I would not agree that a person in grave sin should be permitted to receive communion. This is Church doctrine. (I would again note none of this is of personal concern.) But with respect to the question before the synod, and where sexual relations might be taking place, the uncertain issue of the validity of the first marriage and who would properly know this and how, is the potential problem. As the synod seems to have already in part recognized, many such Catholics are unwilling to endure what they perceive as the marriage tribunal process. And this involves the conscience in several ways. Pretty much all of it is an issue.
Click to expand...
Well, if people are unwilling to endure the marriage tribunal process, perhaps it could be simplified to the process which Jesus explicitly rejected: just let one of them write a decree of divorce.

That, of course, would vitiate the promise of permanence and fidelity given in the marriage vows.
 
The conscience isn’t supreme in the discernment of the truth of what is right and wrong according to the church. Read veritatis splendor sections 32 and 62-64. I’d post them if I weren’t on my phone. The conscience is prone to error, even in certain judgements it makes. What it means by certain isn’t that the truth of the judgement is certain, but rather that the individual is certain of its truth (and his certainty can be erroneous).

The church on the other hand is not prone to error when it comes to its moral tradition. This is guaranteed by Christ.
 
JimG said:
Well, if people are unwilling to endure the marriage tribunal process, perhaps it could be simplified to the process which Jesus explicitly rejected: just let one of them write a decree of divorce.

That, of course, would vitiate the promise of permanence and fidelity given in the marriage vows.
Click to expand...
But it might line up with one’s conscience, which seems to be the end value for many people.
And so then our pastoral approach is…what? Tailor the pastoral approach to the conscience?
That cannot be, because it leads to chaos. We are not called to live in chaos. The only way is to tailor the pastoral approach to the truth, and exhort the conscience to conform.

I like the previous poster’s reference to Veritatis Splendor and I hope many people read it.
 
JimG said:
Well, if people are unwilling to endure the marriage tribunal process, perhaps it could be simplified to the process which Jesus explicitly rejected: just let one of them write a decree of divorce.

That, of course, would vitiate the promise of permanence and fidelity given in the marriage vows.
Click to expand...
Well, could you perhaps cite a specific verse in Matthew, Mark or Luke where Jesus says a second marriage is adultery?
 
clem456 said:
But it might line up with one’s conscience, which seems to be the end value for many people.
And so then our pastoral approach is…what? Tailor the pastoral approach to the conscience?
That cannot be, because it leads to chaos. We are not called to live in chaos. The only way is to tailor the pastoral approach to the truth, and exhort the conscience to conform.

I like the previous poster’s reference to Veritatis Splendor and I hope many people read it.
Click to expand...
While I don’t see that the pastoral approach should be linked to conscience, there is the world as it is and this should somehow be addressed. If the Church is unnecessarily strict, it will only contract and become less and less relevant to a world already in spiritual chaos. I believe Pope Francis realizes it, is attempting to address it and is unlikely to please everyone in the process. But I believe his understanding is profound and have no concerns about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top