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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Not necessarily when #1790 of the CCC provivdes that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience”. To interpret this to mean that a person’s certain judgment of conscience must always agree with Church teaching would render the concept of conscience meaningless. As has been noted, it is this interpretation that is contrary to Church teaching.

It seems it is difficult to grasp, but it concerns spirituality and it would seem spirituality is all but lost to the western world,
 
With several people disagreeing, I am only glad I quoted the Catechism and Catholic bishop. Me? I will stick with what the Church is teaching, including its teaching on the role of the conscience. I do not see the conflict. I think this is a rather decent synthesis:
Assuming for a moment we respect that people make decisions via their conscience, that does not imply we must accommodate or formulate a new Catholic worldview to meet the results of those decisions.
This is what is important. There is not compulsion to change even disciplines and methods to accommodate the journey people take as they grow and develop a better conscience. Furthermore, encodings some accommodations might work against that growth. Maybe not always. I just see where this can go both ways, in reference to disciplines (the root of which is “to teach”)
 
Not necessarily when #1790 of the CCC provivdes that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience”. To interpret this to mean that a person’s certain judgment of conscience must always agree with Church teaching would render the concept of conscience meaningless. As has been noted, it is this interpretation that is contrary to Church teaching.
That leads to moral relativism, what is right for me is right for me, and what is right for you is right for you, even if what we each view as being right contradicts one another. Truth cannot contradict truth.

And to know what the Church teaches and to wilfully reject it is to be guilty of heresy.

If what you think your conscience is telling you contradicts Church teaching, then what you believe your conscience is telling you is actually wrong. To believe otherwise is to put yourself above the magisterium of Christ’s Church.
 
Including “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of conscience”, right?
And conscience must be formed in line with Church teaching. Dignitatis Humanae clearly states that conscience must be formed in line with the “authoritative teaching of the Church”. If a person knows what the Church teaches and acts otherwise then he has not formed his conscience in line with Church teaching, but has actively chosen to form his conscience in opposition to Church teaching. We are not free to reject the teachings of the Church just because we feel that our conscience (not formed in line with Church teaching) tells us otherwise.
 
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.
I disagree. That’s exactly how you judge if a conscience is well formed. If you can not come to the “right” conclusion on something that is settled by the Church, how can you use your conscience to evaluate situations the Church hasn’t spoken on?
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.
I agree. The best way to learn what is right is to do what is right.
 
A person must obey the certain judgments of conscience.

Several things must be kept in mind. A judgment of conscience can be certain if it accords with objective moral law. And one must realize that conscience is not a way to opt out of divine moral law.

If conscience and divine law contradict each other, then we make God into a contradiction. “Here is the divine law, which is entrusted to the Church, he who hears you, hears me. But if anyone dislikes that law, just follow your conscience to find a way around it.” That would be a false and erroneous conscience. God’s moral compass does not point two directions at once.
 
CCC 2039: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

If a persons conscience is in opposition to the teachings of the Church then that person’s conscience is in error.
 
I disagree. That’s exactly how you judge if a conscience is well formed. If you can not come to the “right” conclusion on something that is settled by the Church, how can you use your conscience to evaluate situations the Church hasn’t spoken on?.
By settled, if you mean dogma, then that is something that must be accepted with Catholic faith, for Catholics. For such a one, the first question is whether that faith has developed to the point that there is understanding of the teaching authority of the Church. The thing is, I do not know what “accept” means. If someone, for example, simply cannot wrap their head around the perpetual virginity of Mary, they can not be held accountable for not being able to believe it. The best one can do is accept that one cannot believe it, but must be missing something. With this kind of faith, humility is key. It is only our pride that insists our understanding must be final.

Yet, we can still act in accord to our conscience. For example, such a one above may decline teaching if it involves teaching this subject, or at least word all presentation with, “The Catholic Church teaches…”

But what we are dealing with here usually does not rise to the level of dogma. Some of it does, but some is simply discipline. Then there are other areas of Church teaching, like on the death penalty, where one can disagree, but is obligated to continue to understand the mind of the Church.

I see the idea of an individual judging for himself whether his conscience in well-formed as epistemological loop. Think of it this way, who here can say his conscience is poorly formed? If you can, then don’t you first have to know enough to say it.
 
That leads to moral relativism, what is right for me is right for me, and what is right for you is right for you, even if what we each view as being right contradicts one another. Truth cannot contradict truth.

And to know what the Church teaches and to wilfully reject it is to be guilty of heresy.

If what you think your conscience is telling you contradicts Church teaching, then what you believe your conscience is telling you is actually wrong. To believe otherwise is to put yourself above the magisterium of Christ’s Church.
Tell me how a certain judgment of conscience made in accordance with CCC 1790 of the CCC, which speaks of the law of God inscribed on the conscience of man, could be moral relativism. Please simply try to answer this question.
 
Tell me how a certain judgment of conscience made in accordance with CCC 1790 of the CCC, which speaks of the law of God inscribed on the conscience of man, could be moral relativism. Please simply try to answer this question.
I think what leads to moral relativism is when we fail in our responsibility to continue to form our conscience, especially when we are motivated by our own sense of be right.
 
Tell me how a certain judgment of conscience made in accordance with CCC 1790 of the CCC, which speaks of the law of God inscribed on the conscience of man, could be moral relativism. Please simply try to answer this question.
The Catechism is clear “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” CCC 2039

We are all in danger of being enslaved to our Earthly desires, this too is mentioned in the Catechism. What can appear to be the voice of our conscience can too easily be the voice of our Earthly passions and desires.

The reality is that truth cannot contradict truth. We are not free to define truth for ourselves. If one person’s conscience on certain moral issues contradicts another’s then clearly at least one of them must be in error.

However, we have the Church and her magisterium to determine truth and protect us from error. If a person’s conscience is in opposition to Church teaching, then that person’s conscience is in error, that is one of the beauties of our Church.
 
I disagree. That’s exactly how you judge if a conscience is well formed. If you can not come to the “right” conclusion on something that is settled by the Church, how can you use your conscience to evaluate situations the Church hasn’t spoken on?
It’s too precious to hold everyone to the same standard as we ourselves are at in defining this issue. For example in my conversations with my 21 yo daughter about some things, I know that many of her peers don’t grasp the notion of ‘intrinsic’ evil even though they’ve been raised Catholic. So a person can have a good grasp of Catholic teaching on something but then faced with a scenario they are called to judge in some capacity, their conscience may lead them to support something that the Church defines as ‘intrinsically’ evil because they can see evil in not supporting that.

Of course, we are never free from natural consequences which have no concept of mercy or justice.
 
I think what leads to moral relativism is when we fail in our responsibility to continue to form our conscience, especially when we are motivated by our own sense of be right.
Your own sense to be right? Even if that sense to be right contradicts Church teaching? Even if a person knows it to contradict Church teaching? Just like Martin Luther did?
 
Sin doesn’t feel good. Period. End of story.
It hurts, it injures, it destroys people. Whether we do it implicitly or explicitly, giving people the impression that sin doesn’t hurt, or shouldn’t hurt, or shouldn’t hurt too badly…that is an injustice.

It is an injustice to give a person the impression that sin is something which should be engaged, or thought about for a while, or bounced around like a basketball while we debate in circles about how evil it really is. We shouldn’t feel good about the stupidity in our lives while we take our time to decide if it’s really stupid.
“if your eye offend thee, pluck it out”…

While we need to “engage” each other as persons, and always have an open door to dialogue, this idea of giving a soft shoulder to a mis-formed conscience doesn’t seem to be wise. It is an injustice and by committing the injustice even the best of Catholics are helping to proliferate evil. Our conscience is NOT GOD.

Conversion hurts. If it doesn’t hurt, you’re probably doing something wrong. Anyone who thinks they can go through life without embracing the cross is deceiving themselves.

In the end, I find that the cross forms my conscience, not the other way around.
 
Everyone’s conscience must be formed according to the natural law which are the Ten Commandments.The Church under Her authority believes this with Divine Faith and Every Catholic must inform their conscience according this Truth.

I am concerned about the Archbishop’s statements here because the Church disagrees with him and so does Our Lord.
 
Tell me how a certain judgment of conscience made in accordance with CCC 1790 of the CCC, which speaks of the law of God inscribed on the conscience of man, could be moral relativism. Please simply try to answer this question.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

**III. ORIGINAL SIN **

**Freedom put to the test **

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

**Man’s first sin **

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death **cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.**291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

**A hard battle. . . **

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world.** By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free**. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303]​
*. . . all for Jesus+
*​
 
The Catechism is clear “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” CCC 2039
It would be better if you would please try to answer the question I posed in my comment #148. It is noted you have not provided the actual teaching of CCC 2039.
 
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

**III. ORIGINAL SIN **

**Freedom put to the test **

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

**Man’s first sin **

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death **cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.**291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

**A hard battle. . . **

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world.** By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free**. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303]​
[/INDENT]
. . . all for Jesus+
This very long comment concerns Orginal Sin and the corruption of man’s free will and does not concern the teaching on conscience.
 
Reading all of this back and forth has me seriously confused. I’ll list my understanding of each of the terms that have been brought up consistently, and then address my actual question.

One’s conscience is that internal “voice” which enables them to determine an action as either good or evil. One’s conscience may be well-formed, wherein “good” is an action in accordance with God’s Will, as taught by the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and “evil” is anything in opposition to God’s Will, or by extension in opposition to Catholic doctrine. One’s conscience may also be poorly-formed, in which one believes actions that are against Church teaching to be good, or believes Truth to be error.

The Catholic Church is essential in the formation of a properly-formed conscience. Obedience to the Church is, as a result, an essential step in forming one’s conscience, a decision of will which requires a certain degree of humility. The concept of a properly-formed conscience is not compatible with disobedience to the Church. As a result, one can follow the direction of one’s conscience and yet still be in error if one is led to act against Catholic doctrine.

My confusion is that some of the wording in this thread makes it sound as though following one’s conscience is more important than obedience to the Church, which in my understanding is wrong. If a priest tells you to kill someone, obviously you disobey, because a well-formed conscience understands that this goes against Church teaching and said priest would be in error. But if one professing to be Catholic truly believes that abortion is not a sin, despite having full knowledge that the Church teaches the opposite, they are still wrong and should not be encouraged to follow their malformed conscience and get an abortion. The proper course would be to recognize that they themselves do not consider abortion to be evil, but yet follow the teaching of the Church and not get an abortion, despite not having a personal problem with it, yes?

Some of these posts are making it sound as though, in order to adhere to this teaching on conscience, that the person should be allowed to have abortions in spite of Church teaching, simply because their conscience is not telling them that it is wrong to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top