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

[Colorad007]

Heresy.

 

[Usige]

The need to be recognized 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.

I would agree that it is natural, but that does not mean the appreciation is a requirement for a valid marriage. I merely speak to the fact that many believe that they must stay in a marriage as long as they are getting what they need out of it. Once their needs aren’t meet some see that as being license to leave the marriage and contract a new relationship. That is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Church.

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.

I have no problem with finding better language to support people in difficulties, but it must still conform to clearly expressing doctrine. The issues arise when mercy is put before justice. Mercy means nothing if it is merely a reflection of a lie.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would agree that it is natural, but that does not mean the appreciation is a requirement for a valid marriage. I merely speak to the fact that many believe that they must stay in a marriage as long as they are getting what they need out of it. Once their needs aren’t meet some see that as being license to leave the marriage and contract a new relationship. That is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Church.

I have no problem with finding better language to support people in difficulties, but it must still conform to clearly expressing doctrine. The issues arise when mercy is put before justice. Mercy means nothing if it is merely a reflection of a lie.

But the Church has new ‘information’ through Jesus revelations to St Faustina and so some things must be revised to reflect those messages. When Jesus said…

“Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart… When will it beat for Me? Write that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failures and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want” (Diary, 1728).

So when people come to the Church with their ‘remorse of conscience’ their ‘failures’ and ‘sufferings’…how is the Church to respond in a way that will convey this mercy that God has for them? If Jesus is saying that if people ‘run away’ from His mercy He will subject them to justice. What an enormous responsibility for the Church then to really reflect mercy so as to give people the proper choice between accepting mercy and enduring justice.

 

[Brendan]

.

I have no problem with finding better language to support people in difficulties, but it must still conform to clearly expressing doctrine.

Likewise. I would be interested in hearing proposals regarding what English words to use to describe Christ’s teaching on the permanence of marriage other than 'indissoluble:

 

[SWolf]

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.

After reading his blistering editorial, I wondered this myself. It seems some prudential matters are now dogma, and some dogma is now a matter of conscience.

 

[DaveBj]

After reading his blistering editorial, I wondered this myself. It seems some prudential matters are now dogma, and some dogma is now a matter of conscience.

To those (like me) untrained in parsing his utterances, this would appear to be the case. Would it be considered out-of-bounds to express gratitude for the fact that he is only one person?

 

[Brendan]

After reading his blistering editorial, I wondered this myself. It seems some prudential matters are now dogma, and some dogma is now a matter of conscience.

Based on his recent statements, it would seem that the Archbishop would have no objections if one determined, in their conscience, that one’s self defense required an AK-47 to be brought to Mass.

“Conscience is inviolable,” the archbishop told reporters at the Vatican, “and we have to respect that when making decisions and I’ve always done that

Church laws, nor the hierarchy, should stand in the way of one’s obedience to the determinations of one’s conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

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.

 

[Mongo]

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.

At the same time the Church must do what is right, which is to deny them communion. Conscience doesn’t give a person the right to do whatever they want. The laws of the church remain despite what your conscience dictates.

 

[Thomas_White]

At the same time the Church must do what is right, which is to deny them communion. Conscience doesn’t give a person the right to do whatever they want. The laws of the church remain despite what your conscience dictates.

Yes, and I certainly did not mean that a person with an informed conscience would receive communion while in the state of grave sin. I was simply noting the actual teaching.

 

[Mongo]

I certainly did not mean that a person with an informed conscience would do any such thing.

The problem is though that when conscience is made supreme then nothing else means anything. Whether it is informed of not is irrelevant. The uninformed conscience will violate the truth everytime. If our laws mean nothing, then truth means nothing. The uninformed conscience is equivalent to the informed conscience.

Saying that a person has a right to follow their conscience is pretty much the same thing as saying they have a right to live according to the moral dictates of reason. They can’t be forced to do what is morally irrational to them. It doesn’t dictate that the Church, or anyone for that matter, has to appease the conscience by relaxing laws. What it does reject is coercion. A man can’t be coerced into doing something immoral. He has both the freedom and the responsibility to do what is right and to be informed of what is right.

 

[sarah_j]

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.

It appears that Cardinal Cupich’s proposal is more in line
with “I’m OK, You’re OK” than it is with the Catholic Catechism.

 

[ProVobis]

For the record, he is not a Cardinal (yet).

 

[Ender]

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.

If you follow your conscience and do something the church holds to be a sin, have you in fact committed a sin or not?

Ender

 

[PaulinVA]

In the article - Cupich then told a story he said a priest had told him of celebrating a funeral for a young man who had committed suicide. The man’s mother, he said, was divorced and remarried and also “very angry” at God and the church over what had happened.

When she came forward in the Communion line at the funeral Mass, she folded her arms, a common sign that she would not receive Communion but wanted a blessing. The priest said to her: “No, today you have to receive.”

“She went back to her pew and wept uncontrollably,” said the archbishop. “She then came back to visit with the priest and began reconciliation.”

“Her heart was changed,” said Cupich. “She did have her [first] marriage annulled; her [second] marriage is now in the church.”

“But it was because that priest looked for mercy and grace to touch her heart,” he said. “That’s something we have to keep in mind. And I think the Holy Father has talked about that. It’s not a straight line.”

I am really missing something. Commit sacrilege to show mercy?

 

[Thomas_White]

At the same time the Church must do what is right, which is to deny them communion. Conscience doesn’t give a person the right to do whatever they want. The laws of the church remain despite what your conscience dictates.

I believe it is an informed conscience that would dictate that a person must do what is right and thus the person would not commit grave sin in the first place if the dictates of conscience were followed. However, the primacy of conscience is a core belief, and the teaching is that a person must follow the dictates of his or her conscience (even if it conflicts with Church teaching.) I cannot say when that situation might arise, but it surely would not be often and perhaps never for a given person. But it is the teaching. Joseph Ratzinger spoke of consequences from acting on this teaching if the act were indeed wrong but not recognized as such by the person. It is a separate problem. Why a person must do what it turns out was wrong is mysterious to me.

 

[PaulinVA]

I believe it is an informed conscience that would dictate that a person must do what is right and thus the person would not commit grave sin in the first place if the dictates of conscience were followed. However, the primacy of conscience is a core belief, and the teaching is that a person must follow the dictates of his or her conscience (even if it conflicts with Church teaching.) I cannot say when that situation might arise, but it surely would not be often and perhaps never for a given person. But it is the teaching. Joseph Ratzinger spoke of consequences from acting on this teaching if the act were indeed wrong but not recognized as such by the person. It is a separate problem. Why a person must do what it turns out was wrong is mysterious to me.

Primacy of conscience means the Church objectively calls this a mortal sin, but I don’t think it applies to me.

This is used to justify using artificial birth control, among other things. I don’t get it. I understand if the Church says something is okay, but I don’t feel, in good conscience, I can do it. but no the other way around.

 

[Thomas_White]

Primacy of conscience means the Church objectively calls this a mortal sin, but I don’t think it applies to me.

This is used to justify using artificial birth control, among other things. I don’t get it. I understand if the Church says something is okay, but I don’t feel, in good conscience, I can do it. but no the other way around.

I don’t see this as necessarily involving a mortal, though of course when it does it becomes far more serious. The primacy of conscience could be both correct and in conflict with Church teaching and is not simply adhering to Church teaching. Though this would negate its meaning, it is a common misunderstanding.

However, the primacy of conscience is indeed resorted to inappropriately concerning Church doctrine and teaching, as is the case with respect to Humanae Vitae and likely Laudato Si and capital punishment as well.

 

[Ender]

I believe it is an informed conscience that would dictate that a person must do what is right and thus the person would not commit grave sin in the first place if the dictates of conscience were followed. However, the primacy of conscience is a core belief, and the teaching is that a person must follow the dictates of his or her conscience (even if it conflicts with Church teaching.)

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.

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.
*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.

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

Ender

 

[JimG]

In following one’s conscience, there is a prior duty to first develop a correct conscience. That requires paying attention to the moral law in order to develop a correct conscience capable of making good moral judgments. Failure to properly form one’s conscience is itself morally culpable, because a malformed conscience can cause serious harm.