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

[JimG]

If God’s law is inscribed on the individual conscience, and is innate, some further explication is required. Just how much of God’s law is innately inscribed therein? If all of God’s law is innately inscribed to the human heart, no moral teaching is necessary. Parents need not teach their children how to behave, how to do good things and avoid bad behavior, because all of that is known in the child’s conscience.

Those who decapitate Christians as a mandate of God are presumably following their conscience. Is their innately inscribed moral law different than mine?

And if conscience reigns supreme, then of course we would be free to ignore the decisions of the synod if our conscience tells us otherwise. Suppose that the synod decides that marriage is no longer indissoluble and that those who are remarried without a declaration of nullity may receive communion. Well, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. And if the synod decides the other way, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. Thus the synod is moot. Why do we need to discuss the issue, since everyone can follow their own conscience anyway?

 

[Thomas_White]

But Aquinas is not saying anything different to the Catechism here. He affirms that if the will is at odds with an erring conscience, then that will is evil.

“We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.”

The quotation certainly says that, absolutely speaking, that if one’s will is at variance with reason (and not conscience] it is always evil. I think this should be understood relative to Original Sin and free will rather than conscience.

I am waiting for an explanation of how God’s law, which the CCC explains is inscribed on one’s conscience, could be evil. I do not mean to be contentious but believe it is a fair question.

 

[SWolf]

And if conscience reigns supreme, then of course we would be free to ignore the decisions of the synod if our conscience tells us otherwise. Suppose that the synod decides that marriage is no longer indissoluble and that those who are remarried without a declaration of nullity may receive communion. Well, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. And if the synod decides the other way, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. Thus the synod is moot. Why do we need to discuss the issue, since everyone can follow their own conscience anyway?

We can go even further. Because my conscience says I’m a good person and doing the right thing, there was no need for Christ to die for my sins.

 

[LongingSoul]

The quotation certainly says that, absolutely speaking, that if one’s will is at variance with reason (and not conscience] it is always evil. I think this should be understood relative to Original Sin and free will rather than conscience.

I am waiting for an explanation of how God’s law, which the CCC explains is inscribed on one’s conscience, could be evil. I do not mean to be contentious but believe it is a fair question.

I’m afraid I really don’t understand what you are asking. Gods law is not evil. If a mans conscience, that is his reasoned knowledge, tells him what he ought to do, even if his conscience errs he is bound to follow it. If he acts against what his conscience is saying, whether he is right or wrong… his act is evil.

I mean it makes sense really. Conscience is like a muscle. It has to be exercised to grow strong. Cults make a habit of suppressing the use of conscience so that their followers rely solely on them to know right from wrong. That is a very evil thing.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m afraid I really don’t understand what you are asking. Gods law is not evil. If a mans conscience, that is his reasoned knowledge, tells him what he ought to do, even if his conscience errs he is bound to follow it. If he acts against what his conscience is saying, whether he is right or wrong… his act is evil.

I realize you don’t understand what I am asking concerning God’s law and why it has always been Catholic teaching that a person must follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If one errs, it cannot be the result of the certain judgment of a conscience in accordance with God’s law. If a person acts against the certain judgment of conscience, it is a consequence of the will and reason. The person would very well know the act was wrong. However, what must be understood is that it is Catholic teaching that a person must follow the certain judgment of conscience. St. Thomas Aquinas said that a man who fails to do so “is certainly doomed”. Perhaps an understanding of the moral imperative would prove insightful.

I mean it makes sense really. Conscience is like a muscle. It has to be exercised to grow strong. Cults make a habit of suppressing the use of conscience so that their followers rely solely on them to know right from wrong. That is a very evil thing.

Of course the suppression of conscience for the purpose of obscuring right from wrong is bad. That in this instance it would be necessary speaks for itself, but the practice does not always work if indeed it ever really could.

 

[LongingSoul]

If God’s law is inscribed on the individual conscience, and is innate, some further explication is required. Just how much of God’s law is innately inscribed therein? If all of God’s law is innately inscribed to the human heart, no moral teaching is necessary. Parents need not teach their children how to behave, how to do good things and avoid bad behavior, because all of that is known in the child’s conscience.

Those who decapitate Christians as a mandate of God are presumably following their conscience. Is their innately inscribed moral law different than mine?

And if conscience reigns supreme, then of course we would be free to ignore the decisions of the synod if our conscience tells us otherwise. Suppose that the synod decides that marriage is no longer indissoluble and that those who are remarried without a declaration of nullity may receive communion. Well, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. And if the synod decides the other way, those who disagree can follow their own conscience. Thus the synod is moot. Why do we need to discuss the issue, since everyone can follow their own conscience anyway?

But it sounds as if you imagine that conscience is the personality… unique and diverse, different for everybody. But it’s the thing that quivers in detecting right and wrong in relation to Truth. We’re all coming to the same goal. But because it’s something that develops with use, there has to be freedom to try and fall and try again. Like a baby learning to walk.

I see the Church as exploring ways to affirm the use of conscience with freedom without changing doctrine. The fact is that as the conscience develops it recognises its Catholic identity and is drawn to the pilgrimage that the Church leads us on. Cardinal Newman said the conscience is the ‘aboriginal vicar of Christ’ and a deeper submission to the Popes guidance is the effect of identifying his holy ordination within our own conscience.

 

[JimG]

But it sounds as if you imagine that conscience is the personality… unique and diverse, different for everybody. But it’s the thing that quivers in detecting right and wrong in relation to Truth. We’re all coming to the same goal. But because it’s something that develops with use, there has to be freedom to try and fall and try again. Like a baby learning to walk.

I see the Church as exploring ways to affirm the use of conscience with freedom without changing doctrine. The fact is that as the conscience develops it recognises its Catholic identity and is drawn to the pilgrimage that the Church leads us on. Cardinal Newman said the conscience is the ‘aboriginal vicar of Christ’ and a deeper submission to the Popes guidance is the effect of identifying his holy ordination within our own conscience.

No, I don’t imagine the conscience to be coterminous with or dependent on personality. That’s the problem: If conscience is conceived as innate and fully conformed to divine law, it cannot be different for each individual. It would in fact be inerrant.

But we know from experience that that’s not true. Conscience can make erroneous judgments, which means that we can misunderstand or distort whatever of divine law that we have imprinted on our heart. Yet, we must follow our conscience, misguided though it be.

There is a scene in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which Huck and the slave Jim, who is his best friend are on a raft on the river approaching “free territory.” Huck has been taught from birth, in church no less, that assisting a slave to escape, assisting a slave to become free, is an offense against God which will send you to hell. This is firmly implanted in his conscience.

Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma. Does he help Jim to escape, thereby earning hell for himself, or does he turn him in to the authorities, turning back toward slave territory? After serious thought, he says to himself, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!” Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

 

[Thomas_White]

No, I don’t imagine the conscience to be coterminous with or dependent on personality. That’s the problem: If conscience is conceived as innate and fully conformed to divine law, it cannot be different for each individual. It would in fact be inerrant.

But we know from experience that that’s not true. Conscience can make erroneous judgments, which means that we can misunderstand or distort whatever of divine law that we have imprinted on our heart. Yet, we must follow our conscience, misguided though it be.

There is a scene in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which Huck and the slave Jim, who is his best friend are on a raft on the river approaching “free territory.” Huck has been taught from birth, in church no less, that assisting a slave to escape, assisting a slave to become free, is an offense against God which will send you to hell. This is firmly implanted in his conscience.

Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma. Does he help Jim to escape, thereby earning hell for himself, or does he turn him in to the authorities, turning back toward slave territory? After serious thought, he says to himself, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!” Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

There is a scene in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which Huck and the slave Jim, who is his best friend are on a raft on the river approaching “free territory.” Huck has been taught from birth, in church no less, that assisting a slave to escape, assisting a slave to become free, is an offense against God which will send you to hell. This is firmly implanted in his conscience.

Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma. Does he help Jim to escape, thereby earning hell for himself, or does he turn him in to the authorities, turning back toward slave territory? After serious thought, he says to himself, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!” Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

I know what I think. Huck could not violate a certain judgment of his conscience by doing the right thing, and it isn’t Huck that is imperiled. What do you think?

 

[Thomas_White]

There is a scene in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which Huck and the slave Jim, who is his best friend are on a raft on the river approaching “free territory.” Huck has been taught from birth, in church no less, that assisting a slave to escape, assisting a slave to become free, is an offense against God which will send you to hell. This is firmly implanted in his conscience.

Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma. Does he help Jim to escape, thereby earning hell for himself, or does he turn him in to the authorities, turning back toward slave territory? After serious thought, he says to himself, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!” Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

I know what I think. Huck does not violate a certain judgment of his conscience by doing the right thing, and it isn’t Huck that is imperiled. What do you think?

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path."
- Psalm 119:105

+And our Holy Mother Catholic Church’s wonderful Catechism . . . goes on along teaching us further . . . under the unction and guidance of the . . . Sweet Spirit of our Holy God . . . and shares . . . in greater depth . . . by expanding the truth re her beautiful teaching on the true reality of conscience in the life of the disordered souls of fallen sinful mankind . . .

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it** awakens** the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Gracious Holy Trinity+
. . . thank you Blessed Holy Mother Church+

​

 

[kozlosap]

I know what I think. Huck does not violate a certain judgment of his conscience by doing the right thing, and it isn’t Huck that is imperiled. What do you think?

Using this scene from Huck Finn is brilliant! Huck, quite obviously, did the right thing even though it went against what he was taught both secular wise and in his church. Life is full of situations where we must listen to our consciences even though it will, in some cases, go against what the Church teaches. In my case, my conscience, formed over 62 years of prayer and experiences tells me that the way the Church views LGBTQ individuals is not my own view.

 

[JimG]

I know what I think. Huck does not violate a certain judgment of his conscience by doing the right thing, and it isn’t Huck that is imperiled. What do you think?

To Huck it certainly seems like a certain judgment of his conscience that it is grievously sinful to free Jim. He goes so far as to accept hell as the price for violating his conscience.

But I would say that his conscience is misinformed.

My main point is that individual conscience can be so misinformed as to be an uncertain guide.

 

[JimG]

Using this scene from Huck Finn is brilliant! Huck, quite obviously, did the right thing even though it went against what he was taught both secular wise and in his church. Life is full of situations where we must listen to our consciences even though it will, in some cases, go against what the Church teaches. In my case, my conscience, formed over 62 years of prayer and experiences tells me that the way the Church views LGBTQ individuals is not my own view.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. We could view what Huck thinks is the sure voice of his conscience as merely a result of mis-education. And then his “real” conscience steps in to override the false conscience.

Now, you can compare the Church’s doctrines on sexual matters to Huck’s view of slavery. But my conscience says that would be wrong! My decades of experience with such matters can’t really override the Church’s 2,000 years of experience nor can it override either natural or divine law.

As far as I know, the Church views LGBTQ individuals as human beings in need of salvation just like the rest of us.

 

[clem456]

ncronline.org/news/vatican/chicagos-cupich-divorce-pastor-guides-decisions-persons-conscience-inviolable
…

“I try to help people along the way,” said Cupich. “And people come to a decision in good conscience.”

I think what the Archbp says is simply true, and that’s it. It’s true. A person’s freedom of decision is respected. Ok. Now what .

The problem is, IMHO, as a pastoral approach this is so insufficient that it is almost an injustice to the flock. It doesn’t begin to present a path to conversion.
In this age when the dignity of the human person is rightly emphasized, and in this year of Mercy, I cannot help but note the irony in the title of this catechism passage:

CHAPTER ONE
**THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON **

ARTICLE 8
**SIN

I. MERCY AND SIN **
…
1848 As St. Paul affirms, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."118 But to do its work **grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts **and bestow on us "righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."119 Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God, by his Word and by his Spirit, **casts a living light on sin: **

Conversion requires convincing of sin(hello??); it includes the interior judgment of conscience, and this, being a proof of the action of the Spirit of truth in man’s inmost being, becomes at the same time the start of a new grant of grace and love: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Thus in this “convincing concerning sin” we discover a double gift: **the gift of the truth of conscience **and the gift of the certainty of redemption. The Spirit of truth is the Consoler (not the spirit of “pat on the back”).120
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience;

Both/And
This borderline exaltation of an individual conscience without the “And” of conviction is a truth, but IMHO it is a half truth, cause it does not lead anywhere. There is no “turning”, AKA conversion.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord. At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Will that do you then?

That seems very clear "Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church."

If personal conscience contradicts the Magisterium of the Church then that sense conscience is in error.

You can dress personal conscience up any way you choose to, but in the end if it is in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church then that sense of conscience is in error.

If a person knows what the Church teaches and rejects that teaching then that person acted heretically. The fact that they believe they are following their conscience is not a justification as the Catechism makes it clear that personal conscience should not be set in opposition to the Magisterium.

 

[Thomas_White]

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord. At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Will that do you then?

That seems very clear "Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church."

If personal conscience contradicts the Magisterium of the Church then that sense conscience is in error.

You can dress personal conscience up any way you choose to, but in the end if it is in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church then that sense of conscience is in error.

If a person knows what the Church teaches and rejects that teaching then that person acted heretically. The fact that they believe they are following their conscience is not a justification as the Catechism makes it clear that personal conscience should not be set in opposition to the Magisterium.

The words “should” and “as far as possible” are not synomomous with “must”. This teaching is carefully worded exegesis and provides a useful guide, and it is worded as it is for good reason. Again, this does not answer the question I posed concerning CCC 1976 and 1800.

CCC 1800 states the following: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (emphasis added)

Of course personal conscience and reason should not be “set in opposition” to the moral law and the Magisterium. However, is it correct that they have primacy over God’s law? The resistance to this very important teaching of the Church is not really surprising here, but it is nevertheless mysterious. I do not think a refutation of this teaching is possible.

 

[clem456]

Using this scene from Huck Finn is brilliant! Huck, quite obviously, did the right thing even though it went against what he was taught both secular wise and in his church. Life is full of situations where we must listen to our consciences even though it will, in some cases, go against what the Church teaches. In my case, my conscience, formed over 62 years of prayer and experiences tells me that the way the Church views LGBTQ individuals is not my own view.

The Church’s teaching cannot mis-inform a conscience.
Church-people might mislead someone, against the Church’s guidance. But if your conscience urges you to do something against the Church’s teaching, your conscience is mis-formed, plain and simple.

Is it possible you are confusing the Church’s teaching with the behavior of Catholics? Surely it is not surprising that Catholics are sinners, and don’t follow the teaching of the Church very well. ??? Don’t be discouraged by our various weaknesses and bad examples. Follow the Church and you cannot go wrong.

The Church is the mystical body of Christ. If you reject the teaching of the Church, you reject Christ himself. There is no wiggle room. The cross is proof of that.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is a scene in Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in which Huck and the slave Jim, who is his best friend are on a raft on the river approaching “free territory.” Huck has been taught from birth, in church no less, that assisting a slave to escape, assisting a slave to become free, is an offense against God which will send you to hell. This is firmly implanted in his conscience.

Now he is sorely agitated, pondering his moral dilemma. Does he help Jim to escape, thereby earning hell for himself, or does he turn him in to the authorities, turning back toward slave territory? After serious thought, he says to himself, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!” Has he earned hell by violating his conscience, or has he earned reward by his willingness to go to hell to save his friend?

That’s the point. He hasn’t violated his conscience. He has acted according to his conscience in freeing the slave. He has reasoned through a moral dilemma and deeply felt it right to free the slave even though he has been taught in Church that it is wrong. If he had felt that it was right to give the man his freedom but had gone against that impulse because he’d been taught otherwise… that would have been an evil act. His conscience may have been considered erring at the time but in fact, we now know that it is an offense against mans dignity to enslave him.

 

[clem456]

That’s the point. He hasn’t violated his conscience. He has acted according to his conscience in freeing the slave. He has reasoned through a moral dilemma and deeply felt it right to free the slave even though he has been taught in Church that it is wrong. If he had felt that it was right to give the man his freedom but had gone against that impulse because he’d been taught otherwise… that would have been an evil act. His conscience may have been considered erring at the time but in fact, we now know that it is an offense against mans dignity to enslave him.

It’s not that he willfully or petulantly rejected an arbitrary religious teaching, or rejected his own conscience. It’s that he chose the good, because somehow he knew about the good. He heard it, and listened to it, somehow, somewhere.

His conscience was well formed. How that happened we do not know.

 

[JimG]

That’s the point. He hasn’t violated his conscience. He has acted according to his conscience in freeing the slave. He has reasoned through a moral dilemma and deeply felt it right to free the slave even though he has been taught in Church that it is wrong. If he had felt that it was right to give the man his freedom but had gone against that impulse because he’d been taught otherwise… that would have been an evil act. His conscience may have been considered erring at the time but in fact, we now know that it is an offense against mans dignity to enslave him.

But if you were to ask Huck, he would say he didn’t reason it through. He just decided to violate his conscience and accept the consequences. According to Aquinas, he would be morally culpable for violating a misinformed conscience.

So, if the catechism says that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience,” Huck committed a moral fault here.

Now the out, of course, is to say that wasn’t really his conscience speaking. But he thought it was.

And if we are going to say that the moral judgment of conscience can be opposite of the Church’s moral teaching, we are saying that God can hand on his word wrongly to the Church Jesus founded, but he can never err in informing any individual person’s conscience. Sounds rather like a Protestant thing to assert: the Church is fallible but human conscience is infallible.