J
John_Lazarus
Guest
Of course, their other sister Jan was always, “Martha, Martha, Martha!”Thomas: "Martha,Martha "and Mary got along very well !!
They were sisters!
Chicago's Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but person's conscience inviolable
- Status
S
sarah_j
Guest
It seems that Ratzinger here is making a distinction between statements issued
by the Pope and actual Church doctrine ?
i.e. A person’s conscience could guide him to disobey/ disagree with
a particular Pope’s instructions if they appear to be in error according to the individual’s conscience.
We know the Church cannot teach doctrinal error - so I think Ratzinger’s words
must apply to Papal statements, correct ? Isn’t that what he’s getting at there?
- “Over the pope … there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed
before all else…” *
remarried receiving Communion should be left up to the local dioceses…Catholics
can use their informed consciences to judge that Papal decision as incorrect.
E
Ender
Guest
The problem is that you have so far refused to deal with the implications of your position. If conscience is king then how could we not be permitted to do whatever the conscience allows?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
We have all been endowed with a conscience. That is quite different than saying the conscience never errs. It was never asserted that we were all given perfect consciences or that our conscience arrives fully formed. We were also given an intellect. That too must be properly formed and may lead us astray. I think what Newman was saying is that we are mistaking intellect for conscience. That is, whatever we convince ourselves is right becomes right because we heartily believe it to be so. In general, it would seem that our intellect is often required to refute the urging of our conscience.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The phase “over the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority” of “even the pope” seems pretty clear. Joseph Ratzinger took this position as early as the late 1960’s and continued to so do during his papacy. This has been the teaching since at least St. Thomas Aquinas. I think this concerns what CCC 1776 provides and would seem it would be to obey God’s law, particularly when the teaching is that this certainty must be followed.
In other words, I don’t see how it could be that a person’s certain conscience would be a guide to error. This of course is not to say a person cannot err. We know that a person can err and err very seriously. As for the divorced and remarried receiving communion, this would seem to concern only the certainly of a particular person’s conscience. It would be helpful here to remember that a divorced and remarried person might not be committing the sin of adultery in the first place. Committing a grave sin does not seem to me to result from following the certainty of conscience.
E
Ender
Guest
Yet the church teaches that it can.1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
Your interpretation is precisely the one JPII addressed here, and rejected.* To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”… There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor #32)
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
With all due respect, this is a complex issue. The key to the above quotation from Veritatis Splendor is the word ‘unduly’, and it is from this word, which means ‘inappropriate’ or ‘unjustified’, that the remainder of the quotation follows. It is an explanation of the way a person could err.
I would not agree that the certain judgment of conscience could err if it is in accordance with God’s law, even if it conflicts with ecclesiastical teaching. If the criteria for determining good and evil are not the prerogative of God, then whose prerogative is it?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Who has said “the conscience never errs”? I disagree that Newman was saying “we are mistaking intellect for conscience”. The implications from such an assertion are profound, and there is a great deal wrong with it. It would be to say that God’s law, mysterious though it at times might seem, is not inscribed on man’s conscious but is knowable, as God knows it, by the human intellect. This would be the sin of pride–the sin of the Fallen Angels and the sin of Adam.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think we run a risk of defining a well-formed conscience using specific questions. First, one’s conscience should be well formed, not perfectly formed. Few people have reached the stage of a conscience that is in perfect harmony with God. Therefore, there is always the potential that a specific are could be weak in even a well-formed conscience.
Disregarding the role of Church discipline in the process is also problematic. Formation is not just about reading and studying. It is also about living. Living in accordance to Church teaching actively forms our conscience, especially in areas with which we are not in perfect accord with the Church’s understanding. I had my own personal struggle with obeying the Church in the area of capital punishment while I continued to understand more and more what the Church was teaching on the subject. Yet in the mean time, I stopped my behavior which clamored for the death of certain people. One may no agree with the Church on communion, but disagreement does not free us from practice.
E
Ender
Guest
What is “unduly added” is “*the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience.” *This directly contradicts the belief that our conscience is an inerrant guide.
Actually, I agree with this as well. If, however, you do something you know is contrary to what the church teaches, you are betting that you are right and the church is wrong. If it turns out that you are mistaken you will be held accountable for that sin.
This isn’t about what God has commanded, but whether you or the church is the most reliable interpreter of those commands.“The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church.” (Dei Verbum #10)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
You certainly implied it…* “I don’t see how it could be that a person’s certain conscience would be a guide to error.” *(Post #123)
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I would just note the word “certain” in what you have quoted and its meaning in the context of what the CCC provides about conscience, particularly with respect to CCC 1776. As I understand it, for conscience to err here would mean it is God’s law that is in error.
J
Jesus_123
Guest
+In all gentleness and peace Thomas, on the contrary, there is NO such allowance or teaching re the “supremecy of personal conscience” in the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine . . . quite the opposite . . . below is a quote from Catholic Answer’s Forum apologist **Peggy Frye ** dealing precisely with this distinctly FALSE NON-Catholic doctrine:
**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **
**Re:
Is it true that Catholics are free to choose,
with serious consideration,
which Church teachings to obey? **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors: **
:compcoff:
**Motu proprio **
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
Catholics are NOT free to “choose which teachings to obey”. …
The Code of Canon Law no 750 clearly states:
Can. 750
:compcoff:
Dignitatis Humanae
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
§1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Church even when not speaking ex cathedra must be shown (e.g., truths contained in the Catechism, and that artificial contraception is sinful).
Lumen Gentium no 25:**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Church even when not speaking ex cathedra must be shown (e.g., truths contained in the Catechism, and that artificial contraception is sinful).
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
And Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes no. 50 makes it clear that“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot.” (Acts. 4:20)
Is it o.k. to be a cafeteria Catholic? Pope John Paul II says,“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)
Can the faithful form their own consciences when it comes to the teachings of the Church? No.“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is** Christ Himself**, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.”
:compcoff:
Dignitatis Humanae
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
J
Jesus_123
Guest
+Below is a section of The Catechism of the Catholic Church which also deals with the extremely dangerous spiritual waters a soul enters into. . . when they decide their own . . . prone to sin . . . finite minds and hearts are the supreme authority . . . over** . . . our Lord and **His **chosen and established Wonderful Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . .
. . . :coffeeread: . . .
**2089 **
**2089 **
- Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
- "Heresy is the** obstinate post-baptismal denial** of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
- apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
- schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
J
JimG
Guest
If the conscience is a law inscribed on the human heart, what exactly is its content? Does it inform us of the morality of embryonic stem cell research, of IVF, of NFP? Probably not until it has been more fully informed.
Yes, I believe it is written in the human heart to do good and avoid evil. Putting those basic moral precepts into practice does require informing ourselves more fully.
Conscience is primary in this sense: every action we take is informed by our own conscience. We may have studied moral theology or ignored it, but when it comes down to our own personal actions, it is our personal conscience which we make use of.
Now, as Newman says, we ought not to use a counterfeit conscience. Conscience works in accord with the moral law, not in opposition to it. It is not a method by which we can excuse ourselves from known moral precepts or find personal exceptions to them. It is not to be used to make excuses for disregarding morality. A “certain judgment of conscience” will not lead us astray because its certainty rests in its accord with known moral precepts.
Yes, I believe it is written in the human heart to do good and avoid evil. Putting those basic moral precepts into practice does require informing ourselves more fully.
Conscience is primary in this sense: every action we take is informed by our own conscience. We may have studied moral theology or ignored it, but when it comes down to our own personal actions, it is our personal conscience which we make use of.
Now, as Newman says, we ought not to use a counterfeit conscience. Conscience works in accord with the moral law, not in opposition to it. It is not a method by which we can excuse ourselves from known moral precepts or find personal exceptions to them. It is not to be used to make excuses for disregarding morality. A “certain judgment of conscience” will not lead us astray because its certainty rests in its accord with known moral precepts.
P
pnewton
Guest
And yet, " 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. "
This too is teaching we must believe and follow. As Bishop Cupich stated, . “The conscience is inviolable. And we have to respect that when they make decisions and I’ve always done that.”
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Assuming for a moment we respect that people make decisions via their conscience, that does not imply we must accomodate or formulate a new Catholic worldview to meet the results of those decisions.
To me, it sounds basically as though he is reasserting the notion of free-will, which isn’t exactly groundbreaking, so other than to say we must acknolwedge that people have a right to decide based on their consciences, I am not sure what he is trying to say.
Right may be too strong a term, so perhaps the have the ability to let their consciences decide for them. Every time I have screwed up my life, sinned, or failed in someway, I was letting my conscience decide for me. That didn’t prevent me from failing, nor did anyone feel obligated to enable my decision. I still retained the ability, but so what? What does this tell us that is new or even remotely deep?
A
ARSpade
Guest
My conscience tells me that proactive wars and Crusades are a positive thing. I mean, when the Papal legate Arnaud Amalric stood outside the walls of Beziers he was just making a decision according to his conscience, right?
So it’s nice to know that everybody and the church, including the Bishops, must respect such decisions.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
If the conscience is “inviolable” then every man is effectively his own magisterium. In that case there is no need for doctrine, no need for a Church even. Every man can then be his own individual church, create his own doctrines and ultimately do what he likes so long as it is OK with his conscience.
However our Church teaches that conscience must be formed in line with Church teaching. If a man’s conscience puts him in opposition to Church teachings then his conscience has not been properly formed and therefore he is in error.
It really doesn’t take much to open a catechism and find what the Church teaches on most issues. If someone knows what the Church teaches and still says to himself, “I know what the Church teaches on this issue, but my conscience tells me differently, so I’m going with my ‘conscience’” then that is wilful rejection of what the Church teaches. We are simply not free to reject Church teaching.
However our Church teaches that conscience must be formed in line with Church teaching. If a man’s conscience puts him in opposition to Church teachings then his conscience has not been properly formed and therefore he is in error.
It really doesn’t take much to open a catechism and find what the Church teaches on most issues. If someone knows what the Church teaches and still says to himself, “I know what the Church teaches on this issue, but my conscience tells me differently, so I’m going with my ‘conscience’” then that is wilful rejection of what the Church teaches. We are simply not free to reject Church teaching.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I realize it is a very difficult concept to the grasp in the western world today, but with respect to the last phrase of No. 2 of Can. 750 of the code of Canon Law, # 1776 of the CCC certainly applies to it with respect to the law God has inscribed on the conscience of man.
The attempt to impose anything as an ultimate authority between the law of God and man is legalism. With equal gentleness and peace, this is the way I understand your perspective (though not Church teaching) on the question. This is the issue.
- Status