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

[LongingSoul]

That’s kind of odd… If people understand life-long fidelity, it seems that they would be able to understand a life-long commitment.

Besides that, sometimes, handcuffs are a good thing, given our fallen nature.

Dan

When people have happy and somewhat fulfilled and loving marriges the word could be a positive, but for those enduring difficult, empty, lonely marriages… the word could equate with the concept of imprisonment. The Church has to minister to those marriages as well if it wants to help less happy marriages endure.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Let’s not beat about the bush - either everybody takes communion or we stick with what we have now. I understand this argument for the divorced and remarried but it just consumes so much time and energy. Besides in reality people take communion “unworthily” all the time - at every parish I have attended the priests don’t deny anyone in line, and rightly so. The Eucharist will either work or it won’t. That said, I hate this nit-picking - this group or that group is so excluded. IMHO, it’s silly and causing great harm. Leave it be.

 

[SWolf]

I think the Archbishop knows what the conscience is and note that reason isn’t necessarily equal to conscience

Does his flock?

 

[SWolf]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=983149

That’s interesting. I didn’t see canon 915 mentioned anywhere in that thread. Was this meant to imply that following canon 915 means one is trying to limit God’s mercy?

 

[Usige]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=983149

Well I guess Dan and other canon law experts should start looking for another profession then, right?

Perhaps we should simply do away with the sacrament of penance as well. Why confess if we can simply decide that sin does not apply to us? If ultimately each of us are the experts in morality as it applies to us then there really is not reason for the church.

If we accept that those who persist in grave sin should be admitted to the Eucharist, then why not allow any Christian to receive? The bar is not there as a punishment, but as a precaution to those who would “eat and drink judgment upon themselves.” Those that persist in sin get no sacramental graces from the Eucharist anyway, so why put their souls in jeopardy simple to make them feel good about their sins?

 

[dans0622]

When people have happy and somewhat fulfilled and loving marriges the word could be a positive, but for those enduring difficult, empty, lonely marriages… the word could equate with the concept of imprisonment. The Church has to minister to those marriages as well if it wants to help less happy marriages endure.

Yes.

What I am thinking about is that the commitment of marriage can sometimes be what restrains us from doing something we know we shouldn’t do, or compels us to do something we know we should do, but don’t want to do.

If the toilet is dirty, I might just leave it be…but if I say “I’ll clean it.” the fact that I committed myself to doing it might be the only reason why I actually do it.

Commitments should be strong motivators: who wants to be a liar? Unfortunately, commitments (marital and otherwise) aren’t taken as seriously as they once were.

Dan

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes.

What I am thinking about is that the commitment of marriage can sometimes be what restrains us from doing something we know we shouldn’t do, or compels us to do something we know we should do, but don’t want to do.

If the toilet is dirty, I might just leave it be…but if I say “I’ll clean it.” the fact that I committed myself to doing it might be the only reason why I actually do it.

Commitments should be strong motivators: who wants to be a liar? Unfortunately, commitments (marital and otherwise) aren’t taken as seriously as they once were.

Dan

Actually cleaning the toilet is a good example. It’s often a wifes responsibility especially as a SAHM. It’s her responsibility. But after 30 years that word ‘responsibility’ can be a real negative to a woman in such a situation. Just a drudge. There’s no appreciation for having the job done because it’s just her responsibility after all.

Perhaps the word indissolubility evokes the same sort of negativity especially for those enduring difficult marriages. Too bad, it’s indissoluble is not the best way to convey Gods plan of married life.

 

[Elizium23]

As Rome’s Synod of Bishops on the Family closes its second week in a swarm of media attention and some very different interpretations, it might be a good time to remember one simple point.

The point is this. The Church can be truthful without being merciful. But she can’t be merciful without being truthful. Our task as bishops at the synod this month, and frankly what God asks from every Christian all the time, is to speak the truth with patience, humility and love. Truth without compassion wounds and repels; mercy without truth is a comfortable form of lying. Thus, as a proof of our love, we still do need to speak the truth. Then we need to live it in our service to our families, to society and to the Church.

Romano Guardini – one the great Catholic theologians of the last century and a major influence on the mind of Pope Francis — wrote beautifully that mercy is the higher virtue than justice, and that “before one can be just, one must learn to love.” Yet he also wrote:

“True illness of the mind and spirit sets in when a man no longer cherishes truth . . . when in the depths of his soul, truth ceases to be to him the primary, the most important concern.”

If being a Christian is simply about belonging to an organization, then membership can be as easy as we want to make it. But if being a Christian is about belonging to Jesus Christ, then the words of Jesus can’t be softened or ignored, because what he demands from us is a love that embodies the same total self-gift that he makes to us. We can’t negotiate for a part of Jesus. We can only have him when we give him everything. If we offer him only a part of ourselves, we get nothing – no truth, and no Jesus.

We all feel the dilemma of good people who are divorced and civilly remarried but wish the solace of Communion, and others who deal with same-sex attraction. No one can dismiss the hardships these persons sometimes face. But it’s the Gospel that needs to guide us in our reasoning. The central issue is, do we and they want Jesus Christ on his terms or on ours? If we can’t in principle accept the possibility of discomfort, suffering and even martyrdom, then we’re not disciples. We can’t rewrite or overlook what Jesus requires in order to follow him. Jesus saw the sincerity and goodness in the rich young man (Mk 10:17-22), but he nonetheless told the truth about what following him involved.

The issue of truth is not ultimately about a code of conduct or a set of creedal affirmations, though these things are clearly important. Truth in a Christian life is about a relationship with Jesus Christ, founded in the person of the Son of God, and animated by a willingness to do whatever he asks from those who wish to follow him.

We can choose to include or exclude ourselves on the path of following Jesus. He will never stop loving us, whatever we choose. But in all of today’s hard moral issues, the terms of the relationship are not ours to set.

#​

archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-weekly-column-mercy-truth-and-belonging-to-jesus-christ/

+Chaput’s words provide an excellent counterbalance to those of +Cupich. Perhaps gilliam has been reading a little too much Crux and not enough National Catholic Register, but “mercy” and “pastoral” does not mean ignoring the law or divinely revealed doctrine. It simply means applying them in a loving, human manner, without being cold or legalistic about it. Perhaps that is a challenge in the United States, where everyone here feels entitled to Holy Communion and will yap to the press at the first whiff of implementation of Canon 915. But that does not preclude the law from being followed accurately by the shepherds of the Church, who carry a crosier which represents many contrasting ways of caring for their flocks.

 

[dans0622]

Actually cleaning the toilet is a good example. It’s often a wifes responsibility especially as a SAHM. It’s her responsibility. But after 30 years that word ‘responsibility’ can be a real negative to a woman in such a situation. Just a drudge. There’s no appreciation for having the job done because it’s just her responsibility after all.

Perhaps the word indissolubility evokes the same sort of negativity especially for those enduring difficult marriages. Too bad, it’s indissoluble is not the best way to convey Gods plan of married life.

I know what you mean.

In addition to a general lack of appreciation for the binding nature of commitments, there has been a corresponding reduction in the sense of satisfaction that comes from the very fact of having fulfilled a commitment.

Actually cleaning the toilet is a good example. It’s often a wifes responsibility especially as a SAHM. It’s her responsibility. …

That’s good to know. I can now predict what I will be telling the wife when I get home…and can also predict the reaction.

Dan

 

[LongingSoul]

I know what you mean.

In addition to a general lack of appreciation for the binding nature of commitments, there has been a corresponding reduction in the sense of satisfaction that comes from the very fact of having fulfilled a commitment.

Yes.

That’s good to know. I can now predict what I will be telling the wife when I get home…and can also predict the reaction.

Dan

No you better not do that.

 

[Brendan]

Actually cleaning the toilet is a good example. It’s often a wifes responsibility especially as a SAHM. It’s her responsibility. But after 30 years that word ‘responsibility’ can be a real negative to a woman in such a situation. Just a drudge. There’s no appreciation for having the job done because it’s just her responsibility after all.

Perhaps the word indissolubility evokes the same sort of negativity especially for those enduring difficult marriages. Too bad, it’s indissoluble is not the best way to convey Gods plan of married life.

I know of a priest who was the driver for Mother Theresa. He told me of a time where Mother walked into a bathroom that had been cleaned by one of her sisters. She said that it was sparkling. Her comment to Fr was “that is the act of someone who REALLY loves God”

The cleaning of a toilet, or any other ‘place’ God puts us in our lives, can be see as a negative, or as a opportunity to love God.

So you have set exactly HOW the Church is to help, to show them how to take that union that they are in, and see how even in separation, it is an opportunity to love God, and to find Joy in that.

The sister who cleaned the bathrooms, possibly day in, day out, could have chosen to resent it, or to find God in it. And where there is God, there is joy.

 

[Usige]

There’s no appreciation for having the job done because it’s just her responsibility after all.

That is part of the issue in most of western society though. This thought that if I don’t get appreciation for any and every thing I do then I shouldn’t have to do it. We all have responsibilities that go unappreciated. So what? My lungs have a responsibility to extract oxygen from the air and CO2 from my blood. I don’t appreciate them doing that, so should my lungs simply leave? Of course not, because they are part of the whole. When we marry we are no longer two people, but one. Each will do other things that the other doesn’t appreciate, but that is the nature of living in union.

That doesn’t mean we should discount our spouse, but this modern concept of needing to be validated for what we do is a big part of why marriages fall apart. If you aren’t giving me what I want, then I am free to leave and reject my commitments. No, that’s not how unions works. Those who marry aren’t two symbiotic entities, but rather a union of the spouses.

 

[philipl]

I think he would respect it and I think he is of the mind that the couple (as individuals, of course) is able to determine whether or not there is anything sinful about such relations.

Dan

Well then its up to everyone to determine what type of relations are sinful?

 

[ProVobis]

Conscience? Now where did we hear this before?

Oh yeah, right before Humanae Vitae was issued.

 

[LittleFlower378]

There is a lot of talk about the primacy of the conscience and the inviolability of the conscience. I would just note that the conscience is that aspect of the intellectual faculty of the soul by which we make moral judgments about specific actions.

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.

 

[LongingSoul]

I know of a priest who was the driver for Mother Theresa. He told me of a time where Mother walked into a bathroom that had been cleaned by one of her sisters. She said that it was sparkling. Her comment to Fr was “that is the act of someone who REALLY loves God”

The cleaning of a toilet, or any other ‘place’ God puts us in our lives, can be see as a negative, or as a opportunity to love God.

So you have set exactly HOW the Church is to help, to show them how to take that union that they are in, and see how even in separation, it is an opportunity to love God, and to find Joy in that.

The sister who cleaned the bathrooms, possibly day in, day out, could have chosen to resent it, or to find God in it. And where there is God, there is joy.

But the reality of life is that to experience that joy, a person needs to experience Gods unconditional love. Even Mother Teresa in her posthumous biography, Come Be My Light, was revealed to have not experienced that joy or Gods love for the last 40 years of her ministry in Calcutta (apart from a brief 5 weeks period). That was an indescribable agony for her as revealed through the letters to her confessor. If someone as holy as Mother Teresa found such agony in just doing her job without the experience of Gods love, how much harder for the ordinary man to endure faithfully?

Focusing on demanding rules be obeyed religiously to be acceptable in the Church life isn’t a good plan or I don’t even believe, Gods plan, is not that effective in a world that offers so many other pleasant (albiet toxic) salves for their suffereing.

 

[LittleFlower378]

This undermining of Church doctrine is wasting alot of time.

Here are your wedding vows:

***I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

The priest will then say aloud “You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide. Amen.”[5]***

In sickness and in health… until death do us part. So even in the rare circumstance that a wife or husband gets deserted that person is still bound to the other. Who knows maybe they are sick in the head. What if they come back into the persons life years later, they are still married. Just letting them re-marry and receive communion isn’t a “help.”

Debating this is not only going to confuse the faithful in this time of people poorly catechized but also lead to scandal.

To me this is all false compassion brought about by liberal non-Catholics and liberal Catholics, and they are working on the Bishops, and the Bishops are giving in.

 

[JimG]

Karl Keating said it pithily:

 

[LongingSoul]

That is part of the issue in most of western society though. This thought that if I don’t get appreciation for any and every thing I do then I shouldn’t have to do it. We all have responsibilities that go unappreciated. So what? My lungs have a responsibility to extract oxygen from the air and CO2 from my blood. I don’t appreciate them doing that, so should my lungs simply leave? Of course not, because they are part of the whole. When we marry we are no longer two people, but one. Each will do other things that the other doesn’t appreciate, but that is the nature of living in union.

That doesn’t mean we should discount our spouse, but this modern concept of needing to be validated for what we do is a big part of why marriages fall apart. If you aren’t giving me what I want, then I am free to leave and reject my commitments. No, that’s not how unions works. Those who marry aren’t two symbiotic entities, but rather a union of the spouses.

The need to be recognised and appreciated is completely valid as a human experience. It’s an expression of the need for Gods love. People have to experience that in their lives. For the purpose of this discussion, it’s not really about the role of spouses in appreciating each other, it’s about the role of the Church in supporting marriage. When marriage gets hard, what is there to turn to in the language of the Church to help endure? That’s when the term ‘indissolubility’ can seem like nothing but handcuffs.

Bishop Cupich references the Churchs relationship with natural law in his interview and it links to the document he refers to.

Certainly, natural law is a law accessible to human reason, common to believers and nonbelievers, and the Church does not have exclusive rights over it, but since revelation assumes the requirements of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church has been established as the guarantor and interpreter of it(39). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) and the Encyclical Veritatis splendor (1993) assign a decisive place to the natural law in the exposition of Christian morals(40).

I think if the Church can assist people in using their natural reason in relation to their own situations, the Church will become more widely spread in a cultural way as opposed to being like a schoolmaster, teaching rules and punishing offenders.

 

[Mongo]

If this is the new teaching of the Church why should we attend mass or follow any of the teachings of the Church? Apparently my conscience is the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong for me, and no one has a right to interfere or interrupt my decisions. What would the bishop say if I wanted to buy a fully automatic gun? My conscience says I need it to f
Defend myself and my family. My guess is that he would think I need to be kept from it.