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

[Thomas_White]

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

The question is complex and far larger. It would be difficult to explain why in a forum comment, but it concerns the problem of legalism and clericalism that Pope Francis and others believe is the greatest threat to the Church today. I believe Pope Francis sought the discussion of the questions before the synod for this purpose, and it is this process that very much needs to occur so as to shift the focus to spirituality.

 

[graciew]

The question is complex and far larger. It would be difficult to explain why in a forum comment, but it concerns the problem of legalism and clericalism that Pope Francis and others believe is the greatest threat to the Church today. I believe Pope Francis sought the discussion of the questions before the synod for this purpose, and it is this process that very much needs to occur so as to shift the focus to spirituality.

Thomas: "Martha,Martha "and Mary got along very well !!
They were sisters!

 

[JimG]

It is a truism that a judgment of the conscience can be right or wrong. It is also true that no one can escape making judgments of conscience. Judgments of conscience are particular applications of general moral law. Individuals make decisions of conscience about particular actions or inactions in their own life. It is unavoidable.

Because one is always and everyday making decisions of conscience, it is important that the conscience be well formed.

Listening to Catholic radio the other day I heard a woman talking about her experience with many young people. One problem, she noted, is that many people simply have no idea of how to make moral decisions, because they have never been taught anything about morality, except as a personal and subjective matter.

Thinking about that, it occurred to me that the historical confluence of events helped to lead to a general degradation of moral conscience. In the years after Vatican II, catechetics took a big hit. The teaching of doctrine and morality was in many places simply abandoned. At the very same time, sermons which often had treated of doctrine and morality were replaced by homilies which were intended to be reflections on the gospel readings. So: no moral training in religious education; no moral training in homiletics. The predictable outcome was that the formation of conscience was sorely neglected.

Now we find an emphasis on following ones conscience just at the time when so many consciences have been ill formed.

 

[PaulinVA]

The question is complex and far larger. It would be difficult to explain why in a forum comment, but it concerns the problem of legalism and clericalism that Pope Francis and others believe is the greatest threat to the Church today. I believe Pope Francis sought the discussion of the questions before the synod for this purpose, and it is this process that very much needs to occur so as to shift the focus to spirituality.

I would argue that Church has painted itself into the legalism and clericism corner, even though Christ spoke against it.

So, we talk about the poor catechising of the younger generation, but, then, we want to upend what the older generation learned. I must admit I am confused by what people want, and how it fits in with tradition.

 

[SWolf]

I would argue that Church has painted itself into the legalism and clericism corner, even though Christ spoke against it.

How so?

 

[JimG]

I would argue that Church has painted itself into the legalism and clericism corner, even though Christ spoke against it.

So, we talk about the poor catechising of the younger generation, but, then, we want to upend what the older generation learned. I must admit I am confused by what people want, and how it fits in with tradition.

Actually, I think that teaching persons sufficient morality to have a well formed conscience is the opposite of legalism and clericalism. If a person has a well formed conscience based on objective and internalized moral norms, there is no need to resort to continued reliance on clerical instruction or on subjective feelings.

 

[PaulinVA]

Actually, I think that teaching persons sufficient morality to have a well formed conscience is the opposite of legalism and clericalism. If a person has a well formed conscience based on objective and internalized moral norms, there is no need to resort to continued reliance on clerical instruction or on subjective feelings.

Jim, I don’t think the Church wants each person to have a well-formed conscience that makes decisions that could be at odds to Church teaching. In fact, HOW CAN a well-formed conscience make decisions at odds to Church teaching?

:
Originally Posted by PaulinVA

I would argue that Church has painted itself into the legalism and clericism corner, even though Christ spoke against it.

SWolf said: How so?

SWolf, I think that my generation was certainly taught to “pray, pay, and obey”.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is a truism that a judgment of the conscience can be right or wrong. It is also true that no one can escape making judgments of conscience. Judgments of conscience are particular applications of general moral law. Individuals make decisions of conscience about particular actions or inactions in their own life. It is unavoidable.

Because one is always and everyday making decisions of conscience, it is important that the conscience be well formed.

Listening to Catholic radio the other day I heard a woman talking about her experience with many young people. One problem, she noted, is that many people simply have no idea of how to make moral decisions, because they have never been taught anything about morality, except as a personal and subjective matter.

Thinking about that, it occurred to me that the historical confluence of events helped to lead to a general degradation of moral conscience. In the years after Vatican II, catechetics took a big hit. The teaching of doctrine and morality was in many places simply abandoned. At the very same time, sermons which often had treated of doctrine and morality were replaced by homilies which were intended to be reflections on the gospel readings. So: no moral training in religious education; no moral training in homiletics. The predictable outcome was that the formation of conscience was sorely neglected.

Now we find an emphasis on following ones conscience just at the time when so many consciences have been ill formed.

I agree with the important exception of CCC 1790: “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…”

This is to know right from wrong and to have a concern for others. Its absence is a serious matter, but I am not so sure it could involve events that followed Vatican II or other like factors.

 

[Thomas_White]

Actually, I think that teaching persons sufficient morality to have a well formed conscience is the opposite of legalism and clericalism. If a person has a well formed conscience based on objective and internalized moral norms, there is no need to resort to continued reliance on clerical instruction or on subjective feelings.

Well, as you noted in you comment #82 above, there is a problem and it would seem there is no harm in discussing it.

 

[JimG]

Jim, I don’t think the Church wants each person to have a well-formed conscience that makes decisions that could be at odds to Church teaching. In fact, HOW CAN a well-formed conscience make decisions at odds to Church teaching?

This is my point. A well formed conscience has internalized the objective moral norms. Such a person will not be making decisions at odds with Church teaching because they have a well formed conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is my point. A well formed conscience has internalized the objective moral norms. Such a person will not be making decisions at odds with Church teaching because they have a well formed conscience.

“Over the pope as expressing the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” (Commentary of the Documents of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger).

 

[JimG]

“Over the pope as expressing the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” (Commentary of the Documents of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger).

Exactly so. If an ecclesiastical authority were to direct a diocesan employee to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, in order to help the diocese’s legal case, a person with a well formed conscience would decline, rejecting perjury in favor of truth, because he has a well formed conscience.

Or, if an ecclesiastic preached what one knew to be heresy, the person with a well formed conscience would not be led astray.

Conscience tells us to do good and avoid evil, but it must be formed correctly in order to do the specific good and avoid the specific evil.

And it is the duty of each individual to correctly form his or her conscience, rather than allow it to be formed by a degenerate culture.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is my point. A well formed conscience has internalized the objective moral norms. Such a person will not be making decisions at odds with Church teaching because they have a well formed conscience.

So, a person with a well-formed conscience can’t decide that using artificial birth control is okay for them; a person with a well-formed conscience can’t decide that they can receive the Eucharist even though they are divorced, remarried, and not annulled?

 

[Demetra2]

Makes one wonder what the point of a Church is if just about everything, even whether one really got married and needs to stick to their vows before God, is up to personal conscience.

Good point. I am surprised he used the word inviolable to describe the conscience. Does he really think someone’s conscience cannot be violated or infringed upon? Many
people have a malformed conscience so to them their actions are just fine. Cafeteria style Catholics come to mind. They often know just enough (very little and often wrong) about their faith to be “inoculated” against the real faith and make very poor decisions about faith and morals. Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.

 

[Thomas_White]

Exactly so. If an ecclesiastical authority were to direct a diocesan employee to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, in order to help the diocese’s legal case, a person with a well formed conscience would decline, rejecting perjury in favor of truth, because he has a well formed conscience.

Or, if an ecclesiastic preached what one knew to be heresy, the person with a well formed conscience would not be led astray.

Conscience tells us to do good and avoid evil, but it must be formed correctly in order to do the specific good and avoid the specific evil.

And it is the duty of each individual to correctly form his or her conscience, rather than allow it to be formed by a degenerate culture.

With all due respect, I don’t think that “Over the pope as expressing the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stands one’s own conscience…”, as stated by Joseph Ratzinger in the context of Vatican II, was quite what was meant. As noted, this is perhaps either not so easily grasped or a teaching for whatever reason one might not want to hear.

 

[Brendan]

So, a person with a well-formed conscience can’t decide that using artificial birth control is okay for them; a person with a well-formed conscience can’t decide that they can receive the Eucharist even though they are divorced, remarried, and not annulled?

That would be correct. As the Catechism noted, the conscience is a law that is written by God on the heart.

It thus cannot direct one to sin. God does not call anyone to sin, but away from it

If one’s conscience is directing one to that which is evil, by definition, it is malformed.

 

[PaulinVA]

That would be correct. As the Catechism noted, the conscience is a law that is written by God on the heart.

It thus cannot direct one to sin. God does not call anyone to sin, but away from it

If one’s conscience is directing one to that which is evil, by definition, it is malformed.

Brendan, I agree. So, how can people talk about the ‘primacy of the conscience’ if the conscience can’t lead to anything other than Church teaching?

 

[SWolf]

Brendan, I agree. So, how can people talk about the ‘primacy of the conscience’ if the conscience can’t lead to anything other than Church teaching?

Say the Church supports an action, we’ll say extremely broad amnesty legislation, that a person with more knowledge than the Bishops knows will be detrimental to society. One can, in good conscience, work against the Church since they are not committing an intrinsic evil.

For intrinsic evils, like abortion or contraception, these are intrinsic evils and therefore can never be acceptable.

 

[SWolf]

SWolf, I think that my generation was certainly taught to “pray, pay, and obey”.

For all this talk of the “bad old days”, I never found a person living through the era who saw things that way.

Must be a difference in cultures.

 

[Thomas_White]

So, how can people talk about the ‘primacy of the conscience’ if the conscience can’t lead to anything other than Church teaching?

Here is the teaching of the Church concerning this question:

“Over the pope as expressing the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” (Commentary of the Documents of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger).

“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). (emphasis added)