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

[Brendan]

It is true we have no way to judge another’s certainty, though it is a common enough practice.

To question whether this “certainly” is a standard of right and wrong, when certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law

 

[Thomas_White]

That contradicts the first quote which declares the certain judgement to result from the hearing of God’s law. Thus it can’t err.

You are taking a quote that was part of a discussion out of context. It concerned whether God’s law could be the standard of right and wrong with respect to the certain judgment of conscience. I have no interest in continuing to reply to what is taken out of context.

 

[Rau]

You are taking a quote that was part of a discussion out of context. It concerned whether God’s law could be the standard of right and wrong with respect to the certain judgment of conscience. I have no interest in continuing to reply to what is taken out of context.

This seems to be an evasive response…

 

[Ender]

The certain judgment of conscience can err. When this error occurs, God’s law is not followed.

By definition, if the conscience judges rightly it is following God’s law. Certain or otherwise, if it judges wrongly it is not. So how is this understanding to be applied in the case where the conscience reaches a judgment that contradicts a church doctrine? I can accept that one must follow his own conscience, but with this condition: if your conscience has erred and you deliberately act contrary to doctrine, you will be held accountable. Following your conscience will not absolve you of the punishment due for committing a sin.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

By definition, if the conscience judges rightly it is following God’s law. Certain or otherwise, if it judges wrongly it is not. So how is this understanding to be applied in the case where the conscience reaches a judgment that contradicts a church doctrine? I can accept that one must follow his own conscience, but with this condition: if your conscience has erred and you deliberately act contrary to doctrine, you will be held accountable. Following your conscience will not absolve you of the punishment due for committing a sin.

Ender

The teaching is that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even it if disagrees with Church teaching. This judgment can err, and if it errs this results from hearing the ‘stiffled’ voice of conscience that is the voice of God’s unerring law inscribed on it.

I would suggest trying to grasp this teaching, which has been stated over and over again, rather than attempting to analyze it. As Cardinal Ratzinger explains, when the certain judgement of conscience errs, it results in guilt at a much deeper level.

That the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even if it contradicts Church teaching is also what Cardinal Ratzinger has said, and that God’s law is inscribed on the conscience is surely a factor, as would be revelation as a continued process. Perhaps that revelation has not yet been fully revealed or understood plays a role. It would seem than revelation and Church teaching are not universally ‘revealed’ in the sense of universally known. This is mystery.

 

[Brendan]

The teaching is that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even it if disagrees with Church teaching. This judgment can err,.

FYI, that is a contradiction. If a person knows the conscience can err, they cannot have certitude.

" I am certain that I am doing right, I am also certain that I could be wrong" is not a valid statement

 

[Thomas_White]

The teaching is that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even it if disagrees with Church teaching. This judgment can err, and if it errs this results from hearing the ‘stiffled’ voice of conscience that is the voice of God’s unerring law inscribed on it.

FYI, that is a contradiction. If a person knows the conscience can err, they cannot have certitude.

" I am certain that I am doing right, I am also certain that I could be wrong" is not a valid statement

I would not think that “hearing the ‘stiffled’ voice of conscience” that errs is to say what is heard is without error. Why would a ‘stiffled’ voice of conscience be known by a person as a voice heard without error? Is not a stiffled voice stiffled (hushed, repressed, silenced)? That is the contradiction, FYI.

 

[LongingSoul]

FYI, that is a contradiction. If a person knows the conscience can err, they cannot have certitude.

" I am certain that I am doing right, I am also certain that I could be wrong" is not a valid statement

I think you are coming at the issue from relativism to state it in that way.

As a Catholic we know there is absolute truth but as humans we are fallible. Also as a Catholic we know that “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.”

We also know that ““Free Will” is that gift of God by which we are enabled to choose between one thing and another; and to do good or evil in spite of reward or punishment.”

So basically I interpret that to mean God gave us the talent to know His will and we’re called to use that talent even though we are fallible. By engaging our conviction of what is the morally right or wrong thing, we please Him more than if we don’t use our talent and just blindly obey.

 

[Brendan]

I think you are coming at the issue from relativism to state it in that way.

No, I definitely view certitude as an objective state. I am simply referring to the definition of what it mean to be certain.

If one recognizes that one can be in error on a judgement, that cannot be certitude.

As a Catholic we know there is absolute truth but as humans we are fallible. Also as a Catholic we know that “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.”

We also know that ““Free Will” is that gift of God by which we are enabled to choose between one thing and another; and to do good or evil in spite of reward or punishment.”

So basically I interpret that to mean God gave us the talent to know His will and we’re called to use that talent even though we are fallible. By engaging our conviction of what is the morally right or wrong thing, we please Him more than if we don’t use our talent and just blindly obey.

Actually, you just proved a point that I made earlier in the thread, that the only means to be certain is to rely on an infallible source of truth.

The Church is that singular source for infallible truth on faith and morals.

Any departure from Church teaching in those matters, becomes fallible, and therefore, there can be no certitude.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, I definitely view certitude as an objective state. I am simply referring to the definition of what it mean to be certain.

If one recognizes that one can be in error on a judgement, that cannot be certitude.

Actually, you just proved a point that I made earlier in the thread, that the only means to be certain is to rely on an infallible source of truth.

The Church is that singular source for infallible truth on faith and morals.

Any departure from Church teaching in those matters, becomes fallible, and therefore, there can be no certitude.

What of invincible ignorance of the meaning of Church teaching? Isn’t this the crux of it? Faith is one of those things that can’t be known or understood until its been experienced. People afflicted by invincible ignorance can experience convictions regarding good and evil in a natural organic way and act on that. Or are you saying that they have no conscience that can experience morality with any conviction?

 

[Brendan]

What of invincible ignorance of the meaning of Church teaching? Isn’t this the crux of it? Faith is one of those things that can’t be known or understood until its been experienced. People afflicted by invincible ignorance can experience convictions regarding good and evil in a natural organic way and act on that. Or are you saying that they have no conscience that can experience morality with any conviction?

I am not saying that they have no conscience, but their conscience is fallible, and thus not certain. Ignorance does not entail infallibility.

Do you disagree?

 

[LongingSoul]

I am not saying that they have no conscience, but their conscience is fallible, and thus not certain. Ignorance does not entail infallibility.

Do you disagree?

But the ‘certain’ judgement of conscience isn’t meaning certain of absolute truth. It means experience a strong conviction of the good. The fact of free will means that we have a talent for discerning based on what we know even if we don’t know it all. God wants us to use that talent and not bury it. When Cardinal Newman said that ‘conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ’ we have to believe that we have the capacity to be like the Pope in charism. Now for us who totally trust the Pope has that divine gift which we can measure our conscience against its pretty straight forward, but even a lot of Catholics here on CAF express doubt about the Popes role to never err in moral teaching. How much harder for those who’s little faith is destroyed by the pedophile Priests scandals and the practice of shielding them from legal accountability? I can totally understand how that aspect of the recent Church has destroyed the seeds of faith that many may well have engaged. However, those sorts of people are still capable of wanting to do good and reject evil even without trust in the Church. Their consciences are just as much ‘aboriginal Vicars of Christ’ as those of us who do trust the Church.