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

[Ender]

What matters is Huck followed the certain judgment of his conscience and did the right thing.

This is the problem: it is not reasonable to assert that he “did the right thing” because the right thing is whatever he decides it to be. If “the right thing” is whatever I believe it to be, on what basis can you claim that anything I do is wrong? You could only do that if you could read my mind, otherwise you have to accept that I acted in good conscience. Therefore there is no act that is per se wrong, and it is not possible to assert anything about the rightness or wrongness of anything other than your own actions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No, and this is not the teaching of the Church. This is not to say Catholic teaching is not formative with respect to adhering to Catholic teaching. It certainly ought to be for a Catholic, **but it is learned behavior, ** and this is the critical difference. For a given person, it is the difference between heredity and environment. It is difficult to grasp, but to say that the environment is the determinative factor is what results in moral relativism, and in consequence there are inevitably endless disputes about what is good and what is evil.

Should a priest tell a person to kill someone, I am sure a secular athiest would know as well as anyone else that this was wrong. It would be a very perilous world indeed if humans did not know, as a result of conscience, that murder is wrong.

How do I know that murder is wrong? It is hard indeed to insist that this prohibition is written on the heart when for so many cultures over so many centuries murder has not only not been condemned but actually celebrated. Given how primitive cultures acted toward other tribes it seems at least as reasonable to believe that the learned behavior is that murder is wrong.

Surely this is the problem with claiming that what is right is whatever an individual believes it to be. Those who join ISIS believe that murder is justified just as surely as you believe it is not. Without an external standard, who’s to judge? Is the ISIS fighter not equally justified in following the certain judgment of his conscience? On what basis can you assert that his conscience is flawed and yours is not? Besides, even if he is wrong, is he not excused because he did what he believed to be right?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The question however, would apply to any moral decision if there is more than one choice. How do you know which one is an erroneous judgment and which one is a certain judgment of conscience?

Exactly.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Something still rattles me here.
I read all the articles in the CCC and I find them coherent. And not acting against Church ,Magisterium or the Pope .Nothing rattles me when I read the CCC.in the context of the Vocation to Beautitude
Neither with St Augustine and that memory of God he talks about. And what I learnt about good and Good from him. Plus St Teresa of Avila.
Is the primacy of conscience that anamnesis Ratzinger talked about to? If it is ,the Church,Magisterium and Pope draw from that Truth and Good which is in turn within us and help us draw ourselves. It is hard for me to put it down…But how can one separate Jesus from His Church?
Sharing. Maybe re reading all the articles again helps. You may see sth I am failing to see perhaps. Maybe I just cannot follow you.
When you say " certain" judgement in English do you mean " the correct one",like being assertive?

Anamnesis is a philososopical term used by Plato. It is the idea that humans possess knowledge from past incarnations and that learning consists of discoving this innate knowledge. In the Meno, Socrates, by asking a series of questions, demonstrates that virtue is knowledge.

I would say the idea here, setting aside reincarnation, is that a person has an innate knowledge of virtue. This is also known as the Platonic Form. A disturbance of or in this source of knowledge is then a psychological problem. In modern terminology, it would be something like sociopathy where a sociopath does not know right from wrong. It is difficult to see how civilization and religion could even have developed if humans did not have this innate knowledge of right and wrong. In that way, conscience would be a factor before even the earliest beginnings of human history. Perhaps this is also what Ratzinger meant by anamnesis.

It is very difficult to see, for example, how the ancient Greeks or the chosen people of the Law, centuries prior to Christianity and Church teaching, did not know right from wrong. Really, the notion is absurd. It is not as though what always was, is now and ever shall be did not exist in the pre-Christian world. What then is the pre-Christian world? Since Christ is God, He who always was, is now and ever shall be, could there have been such a thing?These are all human concepts or ideas and the product of learning, and maybe this is not so easy to follow at first glance. The earth, after all, is God’s Creation.

‘Certain’ knowledge in English means fixed or settled, where there is no doubt. It is not the same thing, however, as objective knowledge. It is from the interior, or the soul. What I see as important, however, is to beware of righteous judgments proclaiming with supposed certitude to know the absolute truth for you or me.

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is one of my favorite Cardinals with the TRUTH!! God bless Cardinal ARINZE!!

"People living in an objectively sinful situation whose conscience indicates to them that they are able to receive Holy Communion are “responsible” for an “ERRONEOUS conscience” and need HELP to “realize their condition,” stated CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE of Nigeria in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.”

What the Cardinal left unsaid, surely on the assumption a Catholic would know it, is that the Church permits, in certain circumstances, a Catholic in the “objectively sinful situation” of a second marriage to receive Holy Communion when in fact they are not in grave sin.

 

[Thomas_White]

Something still rattles me here.

Sharing. Maybe re reading all the articles again helps. You may see sth I am failing to see perhaps. Maybe I just cannot follow you.

There is something I probably should have shared in my earlier reply. The earth of course is God’s Creation, and Christ is God and the God of the Old Testament as well. The temporal world is a continuous process of change, of Becoming, and is separate from Being, the being that IS God.

What I see is a process of development, beginning before history, of religion and spirituality. Catholic teaching tells us this process, and also revelation, will continue until the end of time. In that way, it must be an error to assume that there could be a fixed point in time where the Absolute Truth was known by man’s understanding. Far more likely is that the fullness of revelation and truth cannot be known by man in the temporal world of continued change before the end of time and the full revelation. There is the teaching revealed to the Apostolic preachers, and this did occur during history. The Church teaches, e.g. [IDei Verbum*, that man’s understanding of Apostolic preaching will also advance until the end of time.

This certainly seems a process where even the Greek philosophers, who were an influence on both Augustine and Aquinas, should not necessarily be suspect relative to Christianity merely as a result of their appearance before the historical Jesus walked the earth. In this way, there is a continuous development, and we cannot yet know its fullness. This is complicated by Original Sin.

However, what could be known, by discernment, of God’s law inscribed on the conscience of man? Perhaps if a person were to pray the Rosary for some years, while contemplating each of the mysteries, they might see something of the universal truth that questioning those who declare the certitude of the law is perilous.

 

[Thomas_White]

Under the assumption that what is right is whatever one’s conscience perceives it to be, Huck does the “right” thing no matter what choice he makes. He’s trying to do the right thing here, so no matter whether he goes forward or turns back, if he does what he thinks is right he has by definition done the right thing. Nor can anyone else condemn his choice since the act itself cannot be judged; only his conscience matters and no one else can judge that.

It is only if one accepts that right and wrong exist independently of the individual’s perception that it is possible to believe that morality even exists.

Ender

With all due respect, what would be the purpose of repeatedly attempting to explain the same teaching over and over again?

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…” (CCC 1776)

If it cannot be understood that Huck does the right thing by setting Jim free from slavery, I have no answer for you.

 

[graciew]

Anamnesis is a philososopical term used by Plato. It is the idea that humans possess knowledge from past incarnations and that learning consists of discoving this innate knowledge. In the Meno, Socrates, by asking a series of questions, demonstrates that virtue is knowledge.

I would say the idea here, setting aside reincarnation, is that a person has an innate knowledge of virtue. This is also known as the Platonic Form. A disturbance of or in this source of knowledge is then a psychological problem. In modern terminology, it would be something like sociopathy where a sociopath does not know right from wrong. It is difficult to see how civilization and religion could even have developed if humans did not have this innate knowledge of right and wrong. In that way, conscience would be a factor before even the earliest beginnings of human history. Perhaps this is also what Ratzinger meant by anamnesis.

It is very difficult to see, for example, how the ancient Greeks or the chosen people of the Law, centuries prior to Christianity and Church teaching, did not know right from wrong. Really, the notion is absurd. It is not as though what always was, is now and ever shall be did not exist in the pre-Christian world. What then is the pre-Christian world? Since Christ is God, He who always was, is now and ever shall be, could there have been such a thing?These are all human concepts or ideas and the product of learning, and maybe this is not so easy to follow at first glance. The earth, after all, is God’s Creation.

‘Certain’ knowledge in English means fixed or settled, where there is no doubt. It is not the same thing, however, as objective knowledge. It is from the interior, or the soul. What I see as important, however, is to beware of righteous judgments proclaiming with supposed certitude to know the absolute truth for you or me.

Get it here.
What I can see is that when Jesus was crucified,there were two thieves. I cannot see anyone really dies alone He is there. Dumas saw Him and asked,and even tried to help the other one.
That " today" Jesus answered embraces us all ,I think.
How can we blame anyone who does not have the address to where he is going?

( not getting into anamnesis but as Ratzinger revamped it if you wish as anamnesis of the Creator, I really try and keep it simple)

 

[graciew]

However, what could be known, by discernment, of God’s law inscribed on the conscience of man? Perhaps if a person were to pray the Rosary for some years, while contemplating each of the mysteries, they might see something of the universal truth that questioning those who declare the certitude of the law is perilous.

Thank you for both long explanations,Thomas.
one discerns in relation to what one has been created for. And there is the mission which you carry out In your particular way,which is different from mine,and Mother Teresa,or Jim.
Yet we have an address,we are asking ourselves who am I? Where am I going?
And maybe by now we know that none of us is deliberately trying to push anyone,I guess.Inviting,yes

Yet ignorance is one thing,and refusing another one. The CCC is far clearer than me…

Ps I meant to say Dimas

 

[JimG]

Under the assumption that what is right is whatever one’s conscience perceives it to be, Huck does the “right” thing no matter what choice he makes. He’s trying to do the right thing here, so no matter whether he goes forward or turns back, if he does what he thinks is right he has by definition done the right thing. Nor can anyone else condemn his choice since the act itself cannot be judged; only his conscience matters and no one else can judge that.

It is only if one accepts that right and wrong exist independently of the individual’s perception that it is possible to believe that morality even exists.

Ender

Thank you for putting the matter so clearly. I agree. Whichever choice he made would have been perceived as the certain judgment of his conscience. So no one could second guess his decision. Yet even Aquinas agrees that conscience can be in error.

 

[JimG]

What is the content of the divine law inscribed on the conscience of man?* Why are you asking me?*

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling to him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…" (CCC 1776).

Is it this you dispute?

I asked because you have implied that a “certain judgment of the conscience” cannot be in error because of the divine law inscribed in the heart of man.

If that’s the case, I want to know whether the entire content of the moral law is inscribed therein. But I don’t think it is. I think the content is just what is stated:

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…” (CCC 1776)
The conscience is formed so as to urge one to do good and avoid evil. But it is not specific. There is nothing specific in there about freedom and slavery, about marriage and divorce, about IVF and contraception. That content has to be fleshed out by study of the moral law, particularly the moral law as entrusted to the magisterium of the Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

I was recounting this thread with my wife over dinner, and she had an interesting take on this. She basically said that people can be trusted to act in their best interest, not necessarily following their conscience.

Interesting thought.

 

[Thomas_White]

I asked because you have implied that a “certain judgment of the conscience” cannot be in error because of the divine law inscribed in the heart of man.

And how could God’s law be in error?

If that’s the case, I want to know whether the entire content of the moral law is inscribed therein. But I don’t think it is. I think the content is just what is stated:

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…” (CCC 1776)

I will try to answer. Here is the reason for the question in my comment: “Why are you asking me?” I also know what CCC 1776 says, but obviously it is impossible for me to know the totality of God’s law for each and every possible circumstance in all of time, or even more than a tiny bit of it. What I meant by the question was that what you might know by the certain judgment of conscience is not something I could possibly tell you in that way. It is for God, when the question is in the context of conscience, and thus you are asking a question no other person could answer for you, I believe. I would not make too much of any precise wording and do not believe the teaching is open to analysis that way.

This is only the way I see it and I try to say it charitably and in good faith, realizing not everyone, and maybe no-one, will agree. That is okay. To clarify, I have no personal issue with any of this and have no disagreement with Church teaching, not at all–not of marriage, divorce and communion or issues concerning gays or SSM. These are not personal issues. The question here is really one of perspective, I think, concerning the role of conscience, Church teaching and what is ultimate. For me personally, there is no practical difference since there is no disagreement with Church teaching in the first place. In a way, the questions before the synod that are controversial I cannot directly answer since the answer would necessarily be for another person. I don’t know and have avoided comment.

The conscience is formed so as to urge one to do good and avoid evil. But it is not specific. There is nothing specific in there about freedom and slavery, about marriage and divorce, about IVF and contraception. That content has to be fleshed out by study of the moral law, particularly the moral law as entrusted to the magisterium of the Church.

How would we know all there is to know of God’s law inscribed on the conscience? Seriously, I cannot answer the question. I do know abortion is wrong and this is no mystery. What I believe is that all the things mentioned above are seen as wrong by someone. How does that person know? Does Apostolic preaching tell us that IVF is wrong? How does anyone know anything about good and evil beyond Apostolic teaching?

 

[LongingSoul]

I was recounting this thread with my wife over dinner, and she had an interesting take on this. She basically said that people can be trusted to act in their best interest, not necessarily following their conscience.

Interesting thought.

I imagine that is why the suggestion of those appealing to conscience decisions in the remarried issue, see it done within consultation with the Church and active parish life. The clergy that are raising the issue are coming from a place of seeing these families within the context of everyday Catholic life. They can see the signs of genuine faith growing out of those families. I know from my years of receiving spiritual direction that a director is able to discern fairly well, the signs and seeds of faith which they in turn help the directee nurture.

In the case of Huck, it’s true that he could have freed the slave because his girlfriend was getting to friendly with him or some reason that primarily benefited Huck. I haven’t read the book but from what Jim related about this, Huck had a ‘moral dilemma’ and he was weighing the decision as regards to his moral life. He freed the slave even though he conceded he might ‘go to hell’. That doesn’t amount to a decision to do evil but a decision to do what he believed was right even though he was taught it was evil. Two truths are evident by that. Huck acknowledges that his conscience may be erring but that he had to go with his conviction that the act was good. Also he ponders that what he was previously taught about the evil of freeing slaves might not be the full measure of Gods will for slaves. He demonstrates humility in acting on his conviction.

 

[Jesus_123]

…
How does anyone know anything about good and evil beyond Apostolic teaching?

:bible1:
But if any of you want wisdom,
let him ask of
God,
Who giveth to all men abundantly,
and upbraideth not;
and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, **
nothing wavering.
For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea,
which is moved and carried about by the wind.
Therefore let not that man
think that he shall receive any thing of the **
LORD.
A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways.
- James 1:5-7 DRV

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Blessed St. Jerome+
. . . Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow+​

 

[Brendan]

I imagine that is why the suggestion of those appealing to conscience decisions in the remarried issue, see it done within consultation with the Church and active parish **life. The clergy that are raising the issue **are coming from a place of seeing these families within the context of everyday Catholic life. They can see the signs of genuine faith growing out of those families. .

Is there an implication that the other clergy do not see this faith, or is it only the clergy that are raising the issue (as you seem to claim)

 

[JimG]

Yet one more article about conscience:
crisismagazine.com/2015/an-archbishop-and-the-catholic-conscience

 

[Brendan]

Here is the teaching of the Church concerning this question:

“Over the pope as expressing the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority” (Commentary of the Documents of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger).

Would you claim that ‘ecclesial authority’ and the Divine Law are the same thing.

Or is there a distinction between Divine Laws that are stated by the Church, but do not rely simply on the authority of the Church, but of God Himself.

And, alternatively, there are some laws that are not Divine in origin, but rely on Church authority alone?

 

[I_trust]

Yet one more article about conscience:
crisismagazine.com/2015/an-archbishop-and-the-catholic-conscience

Great article.
Here is a snip:

These simple points lead to profound conclusions. One is that conscience doesn’t create its own truth. Nor is it above truth. The oft-used phrase “primacy of conscience” makes no sense in Catholicism unless we accept that conscience’s authority is derived from every person’s responsibility to know and live in the truth encapsulated in the divine and natural law. In Newman’s words, “Conscience has rights because it has duties.”

It follows that conscience cannot be construed as a mandate for us to depart from the truth whenever it clashes with our desires. Catholicism has never held that conscience is somehow superior to the divine and natural law. To claim, therefore, that our conscience somehow authorizes us to act in ways that we know contradict what Christ’s Church teaches to be the truth about good and evil is, at a minimum, illogical from the Catholic standpoint.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is there an implication that the other clergy do not see this faith, or is it only the clergy that are raising the issue (as you seem to claim)

Throughout the history of the Church and the history of the world, development happens as a healthy part of faith and life. Among the people working and ministering in different fields, arises ideas about better ways to serve the end goal. Some of the experts in those fields are innovative and progressive focusing on the positive potential of the innovation. Other experts are more conservative focusing on the negative potential of the innovation. That’s a healthy dynamic and essential for the synodality that Pope Francis promotes. (Of course you have your extremes of self interested white noise on either side.)

So no, there’s no suggestion that one view is omniscient and the other lacking faith.