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.
G.K. Chesterton predicted that people would appeal to “conscience” as the supreme authority and use it to justify every Ill-conceived idea. He says “why should your conscience be any more reliable than your rotting teeth or your quite special defect of eyesight?”
-from “The Apostle of Common Sense” by Dale Alquist, p 82
 
Thomas_White said:
I do think the word ‘adultery’, as used in the Gospels, means something more than its common definition and as such is a much more significant issue.
Click to expand...
It’s not that the adultery mentioned in the Bible is more serious, it’s just that adultery has become such a commonplace sin in so many people’s lives, the cultural and social ramifications are not nearly as severe as they once were. It’s still equally serious, morally speaking, now as it was back then, and the Church still treats it as such, hence why civil divorce and remarriage is not permitted to Catholics who wish to remain capable of fully participating in the Church.
 
Kurisu35712 said:
It’s not that the adultery mentioned in the Bible is more serious, it’s just that adultery has become such a commonplace sin in so many people’s lives, the cultural and social ramifications are not nearly as severe as they once were. It’s still equally serious, morally speaking, now as it was back then, and the Church still treats it as such, hence why civil divorce and remarriage is not permitted to Catholics who wish to remain capable of fully participating in the Church.
Click to expand...
I think that the results today are just as disastrous for society if not more so. That’s why I linked to an article in the Social Justice forum about the victims of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution of course includes the near total collapse of the meaning of marriage.
 
Kurisu35712 said:
It’s not that the adultery mentioned in the Bible is more serious, it’s just that adultery has become such a commonplace sin in so many people’s lives, the cultural and social ramifications are not nearly as severe as they once were. It’s still equally serious, morally speaking, now as it was back then, and the Church still treats it as such, hence why civil divorce and remarriage is not permitted to Catholics who wish to remain capable of fully participating in the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand and am not saying the sin of adultery is more or less serious than it ever was. What I am suggesting is that, as Matthew 5:22 says, adultery concerns much more than sexual relations in a second marriage and would seem to concern lust was well–in fact, it would seem to mean just that. When I learned CatholicIsm in school many years ago, we were taught, for instance, that “impure thoughts” could be a mortal sin. We heard this quite often, if not daily, for a number of years, so I am not hesitant to say it here. Is this teaching, which it seems is difficult for many, no longer the teaching? If it is, it would seem some ought to first take the beam out of their own eye before making a judgment about any other person. If it is not, that is a separate issue.

That an exception was once made in the teaching about marriage and divorce as a result of its social context is interesting.
 
Ender said:
The insistence that something must appear in the Gospels for it to be accepted is contrary to Catholic teaching. It doesn’t need to appear in the Bible. It is sufficient that it is what the church teaches.

Ender
Click to expand...
And where might that teaching be found? :takeoff:
 
JimG said:
The Church does not teach a doctrine of sola scriptura, and the doctrine of sola scriptura, of course, is not found in scripture itself.
Click to expand...
I know. There is the teaching on conscience. :takeoff:
 
Thomas_White said:
And where might that teaching be found? :takeoff:
Click to expand...
You can’t be serious, right?
If you are a Catholic then you know full well that the Church rejects Sola scriptura.
But just to humor you, here is one of perhaps a thousand official Church rejections of Sola scriptura…
The Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God)
“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”
Click to expand...
 
I_trust said:
You can’t be serious, right?
If you are a Catholic then you know full well that the Church rejects Sola scriptura.
But just to humor you, here is one of perhaps a thousand official Church rejections of Sola scriptura…
The Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God)
Click to expand...
Do not worry! He knows a lot . Maybe he just needs a break hahahaha
 
graciew said:
Hahahah Take this one to read on your next flight,you ll like it!
Just found it for you

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM
Conscience and Truth by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Presented at the 10th Workshop for Bishops February 1991 Dallas,Texas
Click to expand...
What a gift this man is for The Church!
It was a pleasure to read, after all the vague imprecise “erroneous”(ha ha) voices we have been subjected to lately.
 
graciew said:
Hahahah Take this one to read on your next flight,you ll like it!
Just found it for you

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM
Conscience and Truth by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Presented at the 10th Workshop for Bishops February 1991 Dallas,Texas
Click to expand...
🙂 Encountered heavy turbulence while trying to explain the teaching on conscience, so I figured something like a Zen koan might work. :takeoff:
 
I_trust said:
What a gift this man is for The Church!
It was a pleasure to read, after all the vague imprecise “erroneous”(ha ha) voices we have been subjected to lately.
Click to expand...
He is, and some humor for a break helps! 🙂
 
In an essay appearing on the First Things site, Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska, does not directly mention recent public comments by Archbishop Blase Cupich, but his argument offers a sharp contrast to the Chicago prelate’s view that pastors should always respect the consciences of any Catholics who approach the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Bishop Conley notes that Blessed John Henry Newman, the great champion of conscience, believed that “a true sense of conscience had been ‘superseded by a counterfeit,’ in order to assert ‘the right of self-will.’”
Click to expand...
”The task of pastors,” Bishop Conley writes, “is to help the faithful understand that conscience can never contradict truth.”
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26502&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Going over the last couple of days here, I noticed two trends. First, no on has stated that the conscience cannot err, though most of the arguments against Thomas White has centered on this obvious and uncontested fact. Second, it was not him, nor I, but AB Cupich who has brought up the role of conscience in making decision involving divorced and remarried people. Upon reading the whole article, I note, that the gist of the article is that the role of the Church in forming the conscience of a person is done as much through the pastoral ministry of the priest as it is the promulgation of doctrine.

The formation of conscience is a life-long process for all of us, not just those who have been divorced. Since no conscience is perfect, the Church’s teaching on conscience cannot apply to following one’s conscience only when that conscience is correct. That would make no sense as it would be circular logic and contrary to reason. Yet a pastoral path does more than just rubber stamp someone who is in the wrong. The process of this internal forum can serve as a formation of the conscience, where the priest walks with the person through the process together with the penitent on his pilgrimage.

Here is the OP link, in case it has been missed:
ncronline.org/news/vatican/chicagos-cupich-divorce-pastor-guides-decisions-persons-conscience-inviolable
 
pnewton said:
Going over the last couple of days here, I noticed two trends. First, no on has stated that the conscience cannot err, though most of the arguments against Thomas White has centered on this obvious and uncontested fact. Second, it was not him, nor I, but AB Cupich who has brought up the role of conscience in making decision involving divorced and remarried people. Upon reading the whole article, I note, that the gist of the article is that the role of the Church in forming the conscience of a person is done as much through the pastoral ministry of the priest as it is the promulgation of doctrine.

The formation of conscience is a life-long process for all of us, not just those who have been divorced. Since no conscience is perfect, the Church’s teaching on conscience cannot apply to following one’s conscience only when that conscience is correct. That would make no sense as it would be circular logic and contrary to reason. Yet a pastoral path does more than just rubber stamp someone who is in the wrong. The process of this internal forum can serve as a formation of the conscience, where the priest walks with the person through the process together with the penitent on his pilgrimage.

Here is the OP link, in case it has been missed:
ncronline.org/news/vatican/chicagos-cupich-divorce-pastor-guides-decisions-persons-conscience-inviolable
Click to expand...
Yes yes and yes, but:
The approach being used places the individual conscience, -as formed-, at the center of the pastoral approach.
The self is not the center of the Christian life, Jesus is. Truth and love are the center of the Christian life and form the individual, not the other way around. The self does not form and change itself and then expect to find in that place a Church that is accommodating. The self is changed when it finds something radically different that itself, and desires it.

I understand and respect the intent of what is being proposed, but I think it is an attempt to conform Christianity to the self and the world, in order for the Church to have “success” in numbers. That never, ever, works.
 
What about the priest’s conscience which dictates that he should refuse Communion
to a divorced and remarried couple ?

A perceived duty to ask for Holy Communion does not cancel out another – opposing – duty to refuse the sacrament

Let us now return to the case which prompted this reflection: the divorced and remarried couple who, “in conscience”, approach their pastor for Holy Communion. Even if it is affirmed that they request Communion “in good conscience”, it does not follow that their pastor, in order to respect the consciences of the couple – and pending the future formation of their mistaken consciences – must here and now admit them to Holy Communion.

A pastor is bound to obey no-one’s conscience but his own. The couple have obeyed their conscience by requesting communion; it is now time for the pastor to obey his own conscience by denying them Holy Communion, for the sake of avoiding the danger of scandal and sacrilege.

voiceofthefamily.com/the-divorced-and-remarried-must-be-refused-holy-communion-their-consciences-do-not-bind-that-of-their-pastor/
 
pnewton said:
Going over the last couple of days here, I noticed two trends. First, no on has stated that the conscience cannot err, though most of the arguments against Thomas White has centered on this obvious and uncontested fact. Second, it was not him, nor I, but AB Cupich who has brought up the role of conscience in making decision involving divorced and remarried people.
Click to expand...
The question can become extremely complex if one wades through the swamp, so to speak, of subject and object. But it seems to me that if it is the certain judgment of conscience that a person has been unjustly put away or divorced, then the person should not be subject to an exteriorly imposed punitive judgment but rather is entitled to mercy. This is very simple, really. I would suggest that when there is confusion here, one could obtain clarity by asking the opinion of a child. :idea:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top