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

[Thomas_White]

If by primacy of conscience you mean that whatever a person does with a clear conscience is not a sin then this is not something the church has ever taught. It is in fact a rather serious misunderstanding of her doctrines.

This is what the headline to the OP states. “Chicago’s Cupich on Divorce: Pastor guides decisions but person’s conscience inviolable.”

One may disagree, but it is a core principle of the Church. It will not do to ask if I meant that this means that “whatever a person does with a clear conscience is not a sin” when this was not said. This is either to set up a straw man argument or not to understand the teaching.

She has made several statements on this subject; familiarly this one:1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience…
If that was all she said you might have a point, but this assertion is conditioned (not least by the word “certain”). Immediately following the sentence above is this:…Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. *
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.*
Yes, and I said so too and noted it is what Joseph Ratzinger has said as well.
Ender;13367898:
If the conscience can make erroneous judgments then clearly those errors can cause people to commit sins. Furthermore, as 1791 states, the people who commit them may held accountable for committing them, just like the person who does something he believes is wrong.

Yes, this is so. No one has said otherwise.

Finally, how “certain” can one be that X is permitted if the church has unambiguously asserted that it is not?
Ender

I most certainly had no part in writing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is what it provides:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

And this again is what the headline to the thread states: “Chicago’s Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but conscience is inviolable.” And it means a person must follow the certain judgment of conscience. This is not my rule. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus, to disagree is not to disagree with 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 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…His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echos in his depth” (CCC 1776).

This, I believe, is why a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience, Catholic teaching not withstanding, and why not doing so is the result of a lack of moral courage and a serious moral failing.

 

[Ender]

One may disagree, but it is a core principle of the Church. It will not do to ask if I meant that this means that “whatever a person does with a clear conscience is not a sin” when this was not said. This is either to set up a straw man argument or not to understand the teaching.

I’m trying to get you to explain what you think this principle means.

1. Can I commit a sin if I act according to my conscience?
2. Assuming the answer to (1) is yes, can I be held accountable for that sin?
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, in what way can the conscience be held to be primary?

And this again is what the headline to the thread states: “Chicago’s Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but conscience is inviolable.” And it means a person must follow the certain judgment of conscience. This is not my rule. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus, to disagree is not to disagree with me.

I disagree with what appears to be your interpretation of the rule, and Cupich’s implication as well.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m trying to get you to explain what you think this principle means.

1. Can I commit a sin if I act according to my conscience?
2. Assuming the answer to (1) is yes, can I be held accountable for that sin?
3. If the answer to (2) is yes, in what way can the conscience be held to be primary?
   I disagree with what appears to be your interpretation of the rule, and Cupich’s implication as well.

Ender

Could you first provide a citation for what you believe is a principle?

 

[Brendan]

Could you first provide a citation for what you believe is a principle?

My take on the question Ender was referring to what you yourself described as a principle

One may disagree, but it is a core principle of the Church

So it would make sense, then to work from your understanding of the principle you were referring to.

 

[Thomas_White]

My take on the question Ender was referring to what you yourself described as a principle.

No. It is was a reference to No. 1790 of the CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience.”

So it would make sense, then to work from your understanding of the principle you were referring to.

While it is my understanding, it is hardly mine alone. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather than debating a straw man, the question ought to be why is this teaching disputed?

 

[Mongo]

No. It is was a reference to No. 1790 of the CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience.”

While it is my understanding, it is hardly mine alone. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather than debating a straw man, the question ought to be why is this teaching disputed?

The question isn’t whether a person must follow their conscience. It really should be whether an individual’s conscience even matters to the discussion. Whether an individual’s conscience pricks them is irrelevant to whether they should be given communion, atleast in this particular situation. Whether a divorced and remarried person feels guilty is irrelevant to whether they should be given communion. consience only binds the individual, and is a guarantee against compulsion. A man can’t be compelled to do evil.

 

[Brendan]

No. It is was a reference to No. 1790 of the CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience.”

While it is my understanding, it is hardly mine alone. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather than debating a straw man, the question ought to be why is this teaching disputed?

In which case, Ender’s questions are reasonable. They are not a disputation of the teaching, but how you see those teachings applied.

I’d like to hear your answers as well.

 

[Thomas_White]

The question isn’t whether a person must follow their conscience. It really should be whether an individual’s conscience even matters to the discussion. Whether an individual’s conscience pricks them is irrelevant to whether they should be given communion, atleast in this particular situation. Whether a divorced and remarried person feels guilty is irrelevant to whether they should be given communion. consience only binds the individual, and is a guarantee against compulsion. A man can’t be compelled to do evil.

With all due respect, the teaching is perhaps difficult to grasp. The teaching applies in every instance you mention. How does a person determine whether or not they are in grave sin? This is known in accordance with CCC 1790, and applies to a person divorced and remarried etc. that is in grave sin. You are only assuming (incorrectly) that the person would conclude they should receive communion. This is important. Why this assumption?

 

[Thomas_White]

In which case, Ender’s questions are reasonable. They are not a disputation of the teaching, but how you see those teachings applied.

I’d like to hear your answers as well.

How do I see the teachings applied other than with respect to CCC 1776 in a very specific and limited context?

 

[Mongo]

With all due respect, the teaching is perhaps difficult to grasp. The teaching applies in every instance you mention. How does a person determine whether or not they are in grave sin? This is known in accordance with CCC 1790, and applies to a person divorced and remarried etc. that is in grave sin. You are only assuming (incorrectly) that the person would conclude they should receive communion. This is important. Why this assumption?

It is irrelevant what they conclude. Their conscience is irrelevant. it isn’t a test of a person and whether they will choose the right thing. The Church has a responsibility to deny them communion, regardless of what their conscience tells them.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is irrelevant what they conclude. Their conscience is irrelevant. it isn’t a test of a person and whether they will choose the right thing. The Church has a responsibility to deny them communion, regardless of what their conscience tells them.

Who is “them”? And what is it their conscience tells them that is irrelevant?

 

[Brendan]

How do I see the teachings applied other than with respect to CCC 1776 in a very specific and limited context?

His questions seem more of a general nature

Such as, can acting in obedience to one’s conscience be an issue of sin, in that can the act that conscience is directing one to be a sinful act.

If the conscience is the law of God, written in the heart, the answer would seem to be ‘no’

Ergo, one’s conscience, by definition, cannot lead one to, say, commit an intrinsically evil act, as such would be proof that the law that one is following is not from God.

Would that be your understanding of conscience?

 

[Mongo]

Who is “them”? And what is it their conscience tells them that is irrelevant?

Reread your post and mine, because apparently you aren’t getting what I am saying. I never said their conscience concluded anything was irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the conscience of the divorced and remarried man when it comes to being given communion. Their conscience is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what they think or feel. It doesn’t matter whether they conclude that it is a grave sin or not. They should be denied communion.

 

[Thomas_White]

His questions seem more of a general nature

Such as, can acting in obedience to one’s conscience be an issue of sin, in that can the act that conscience is directing one to be a sinful act.

If the conscience is the law of God, written in the heart, the answer would seem to be ‘no’

Ergo, one’s conscience, by definition, cannot lead one to, say, commit an intrinsically evil act, as such would be proof that the law that one is following is not from God.

Would that be your understanding of conscience?

That is much closer to what I am saying. If a person obeys the certain judgment of his conscience, and with respect to CCC 1776, it would seem that the person would know whether or not the act was a grave sin. It doesn’t not mean he would not do it and only that he would know it was wrong. In the case of a divorced and remarried person in the state of grave sin, it seems that realizing it would be wrong to receive communion would be pretty simple to discern. It is maybe not the best example since it is so clear. In other words, a Catholic should surely already know it.

What I see important would be removing the person and his conscience from the equation and seeing moral judgments as only as a question of following a teaching.

 

[Third_Day]

Yes, but the primacy of conscience is a core Catholic teaching. The teaching is that a person must follow the dictates of conscience even if it is contrary to Church teaching.

Let’s not forget # 1801, 1790 and 1791 on conscience from the Catechism

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt

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

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

 

[Thomas_White]

Let’s not forget # 1801, 1790 and 1791 on conscience from the Catechism

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt

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

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

Yes, I agree. All of the teaching on conscience must be considered.

 

[JimG]

Let’s not forget # 1801, 1790 and 1791 on conscience from the Catechism

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt

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

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

The important thing is that conscience can be WRONG! It can make erroneous judgments about acts. It would seem that in the current moral environment this is a particular concern, since so many consciences have not been properly formed!

 

[Thomas_White]

The important thing is that conscience can be WRONG! It can make erroneous judgments about acts. It would seem that in the current moral environment this is a particular concern, since so many consciences have not been properly formed!

A conscience can of course be either right or wrong, and I think the way I have framed the question is clear: Conscience is in a very important way correct. What I finding interesting is a focus on what is only obvious, and that is that the conscience can be wrong. If the conscience is reduced to meaning only that it can be right when Church teaching is followed, then this important teaching becomes without meaning. This is legalism. I do not believe man can escape making moral decisions and that God’s plan for man requires it.

 

[Thomas_White]

A conscience can of course be either right or wrong, and I think the way I have framed the question is clear: Conscious is in a very important way correct. What is interesting is a focus on what is only obvious, and that is that the conscious can be wrong. If the conscious is reduced to meaning only that it can be right when Church teaching is followed, this important teaching becomes without meaning. This is legalism. I do not believe man can escape making moral decisions and that God’s plan for man requires it.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Chicago Trib has a feature on him, too, that’s even more comprehensive.

“Are sacraments rewards for good behavior or are sacraments, as the pope would say, medicines for mercy?
That’s a really important conversation. Then you begin to answer questions about who ought to share in those.”

.

True, and the conversation was had and the doctrine set hundreds of years ago.