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

[clem456]

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

This is a very relevant article to the topic. From the preamble:

Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.
…
The one who sees the faith as a heavy burden or as a moral imposition is unable to invite others to believe. Rather he lets them be, in the putative freedom of their good consciences.

 

[SWolf]

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:

No, it’s not simple.

The husband of one of my in-laws divorced her and ran off with another girl. She never remarried, never dated, and stuck to her marriage vows. Twenty years later he came crawling back. She showed mercy by waiting for him and taking him back.

It’s about taking your vows seriously, for better or worse.

 

[Thomas_White]

No, it’s not simple.

The husband of one of my in-laws divorced her and ran off with another girl. She never remarried, never dated, and stuck to her marriage vows. Twenty years later he came crawling back. She showed mercy by waiting for him and taking him back.

It’s about taking your vows seriously, for better or worse.

It is well understood there will be an objection raised concerning whatever is said here about conscience, but I cannot see how this could supercede what Josephn Ratzinger and the CCC teach about conscience. One can only suggest that in the article Ratzinger has explained why this teaching is very hard to grasp in the modern world and point to it for this understanding.

 

[clem456]

It is well understood there will be an objection raised concerning whatever is said here about conscience, but I cannot see how this could supercede what Josephn Ratzinger and the CCC teach about conscience. One can only suggest that in the article Ratzinger has explained why this teaching is very hard to grasp in the modern world and point to it for this understanding.

It seems to me what then-Cardinal Ratzinger says directly contradicts the approach being proposed in regards to conscience. The positions don’t disagree on paper in doctrine, but they couldn’t be more opposed in practical pastoral approach. Least it looks that way to me. And actually they might be opposed in doctrine.
Over my pay grade.

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems to me what then-Cardinal Ratzinger says directly contradicts the approach being proposed in regards to conscience. The positions don’t disagree on paper in doctrine, but they couldn’t be more opposed in practical pastoral approach. Least it looks that way to me. And actually they might be opposed in doctrine.
Over my pay grade.

It is certainly over my pay grade as well, and, really, this was why I suggested one should consult the sources. But what is meant by "the approach being proposed in regards to conscience? Not sure what this means.

 

[clem456]

It is certainly over my pay grade as well, and, really, this was why I suggested one should consult the sources. But what is meant by "the approach being proposed in regards to conscience? Not sure what this means.

As regards the OP etc…

 

[Thomas_White]

As regards the OP etc…

I see. I don’t quite see it the way you say you do in your comment, but, as we see in the Ratzinger article, an explanation is pretty complex. There are two things. It would seem that what Archbishop Cupich seems to suggest (if it is the suggestion) would require a determination at the pastoral level on virtually a case-by-case basis. Secondly, this would be necessary since discipline is both in fact and in practicality the prerogative of the Church. I would say that this sort of an objective process would be very difficult to ever do.

 

[clem456]

I see. I don’t quite see it the way you say you do in your comment, but, as we see in the Ratzinger article, an explanation is pretty complex. There are two things. It would seem that what Archbishop Cupich seems to suggest (if it is the suggestion) would require a determination at the pastoral level on virtually a case-by-case basis. Secondly, this would be necessary since discipline is both in fact and in practicality the prerogative of the Church. I would say that this sort of an objective process would be very difficult to ever do.

I think the case by case approach is always necessary because we are unique individuals
The problem I see is the position of the self in the equation, and the individual conscience as the center of things. I think the mandate to respect individual conscience is misunderstood. I just see that as contrary to lots of things, including the opportunity for real conversion.

And that’s enough for me here. I’m not going to go on about an AB, who is a successor of the apostles, whose briefcase I am not even qualified to carry. What I think is really irrelevant. The issue just resonates with me because my experience with conscience/conversion does not jive with what is being proposed at all.
So, finis.

 

[JimG]

Even if one party to a divorce is innocent and the other culpable, I don’t see how one can say that one party can remarry after the divorce, and the other party cannot. Either the first marriage is valid or it is not. If it is valid, it is valid for both parties.

That’s the thing about marriage. It permanently binds two persons together. If it is a valid marriage, one can’t say, well, it’s okay for one to divorce and remarry because she is innocent, but not for the other one, because he is guilty. The whole notion destroys the idea of permanence of marriage. If the marriage is valid, it is valid for both. If it is null, it is null for both.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I really do not think the intent is to form Christianity to match the individual. I think it is the opposite, but with the reality that this is often a process and takes time. As to what is the “center” of this process, I think differences are more in definitions than in substance. In forming one’s conscience, it is in fact one’s conscience that is formed, not another’s and not God’s.

 

[pnewton]

What about the priest’s conscience which dictates that he should refuse Communion
to a divorced and remarried couple ?

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.

That is correct. We should respect the work of the priest when ministering to those under his care. We should respect AB Cupich when he does what he thinks is in the best interest of one of his flock. The priest in his story should also be respected in his decision to give communion at that funeral. We also need respect the priest that sees denying communion, is needed. In fact, this one needs the most respected as it is the Church’s norm and is in most accord with Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

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.

And where might that teaching be found?

*…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. *(Dei Verbum #10)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Even if one party to a divorce is innocent and the other culpable, I don’t see how one can say that one party can remarry after the divorce, and the other party cannot. Either the first marriage is valid or it is not. If it is valid, it is valid for both parties.

That’s the thing about marriage. It permanently binds two persons together. If it is a valid marriage, one can’t say, well, it’s okay for one to divorce and remarry because she is innocent, but not for the other one, because he is guilty. The whole notion destroys the idea of permanence of marriage. If the marriage is valid, it is valid for both. If it is null, it is null for both.

Remembering though, that the Church has clearly said that there will be no change in the doctrine as it is. This is only addressing a small section of Catholics who are divorced/remarried and already demonstrating a commitment to marriage, family and faith in every way apart from having a formal annulment of the first attempt at marriage.

The Church does have precedence for limbo situations such as Limbo of Infants and also ‘sacristy weddings’ for interfaith couples. There are some things that present widely as Truth, but where the theology hasn’t caught up yet. Perhaps ‘internal forum solution’ has the same sort of nature as Limbo and the ‘sacristy marriage’?

 

[Ender]

The priest in his story should also be respected in his decision to give communion at that funeral. We also need respect the priest that sees denying communion, is needed.

Why would we respect both of these positions? Is not one of them completely wrong? It cannot be right both to give and to withhold communion; what you are saying is that wrong decisions should be respected if they are sincerely made. I reject this position as it essentially eliminates the distinction between right and wrong. Wrong decisions require correction, not respect.

Ender

 

[sarah_j]

That is correct. We should respect the work of the priest when ministering to those under his care. We should respect AB Cupich when he does what he thinks is in the best interest of one of his flock. The priest in his story should also be respected in his decision to give communion at that funeral. We also need respect the priest that sees denying communion, is needed. In fact, this one needs the most respected as it is the Church’s norm and is in most accord with Catholic teaching.

Except that giving Communion to the divorced/ remarried is in conflict
with the teachings of the Catholic Church; it isn’t up to individual priests
to make that decision. The Church’s teaching is clear.

In “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world’s bishops on October 14, 1994 said,

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

 

[Ender]

But it seems to me that if it is the certain judgment of conscience that a person has been unjustly put away or divorced…

The fact that a person may be certain his opinion is correct doesn’t actually make it so. A “certain judgment of conscience” is still open to error. Things don’t become true simply because we fervently believe them. If it was otherwise we would have no basis to condemn the barbarities perpetrated by ISIS. If anyone can be credited with a “certain judgment of conscience” it would be them.

…then the person should not be subject to an exteriorly imposed punitive judgment but rather is entitled to mercy.

This point has been addressed a number of times but it apparently bears repeating.

First, the withholding of communion is not punitive. The divorced and remarried are no more properly disposed to receive than are non-Catholics. In both cases they are in *“an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion.”

*Second, mercy presupposes repentance. If the sin is not repented of - which requires the intention not to repeat it - then mercy is not an option.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Why would we respect both of these positions? Is not one of them completely wrong? It cannot be right both to give and to withhold communion; what you are saying is that wrong decisions should be respected if they are sincerely made. I reject this position as it essentially eliminates the distinction between right and wrong. Wrong decisions require correction, not respect.

Ender

If the child, even without conscious thought, broke the host in two and gave half to his father because he knew by certainty of conscience it was the right thing to do, and he felt no guilt for doing so, then the question is answered. He did the right thing.

 

[pnewton]

Why would we respect both of these positions? Is not one of them completely wrong?

No.

 

[Ender]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM
Conscience and Truth by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Thank you for posting this link; it’s a very interesting document. *To put it differently, the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions and debases these with every passing day. Whoever equates conscience with superficial conviction, identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty which in fact has been woven from self- righteousness, conformity and lethargy. Conscience is degraded to a mechanism for rationalization while it should represent the transparency of the subject for the divine and thus constitute the very dignity and greatness of man. Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth. When the psalmist in anticipation of Jesus’ view of sin and justice pleads for liberation from unconscious guilt, he points to the following relation. Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste. *(End of part 1)
Ender

 

[Elizium23]