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

[JimG]

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’?

Oh my goodness! We have a Limbo of the Fathers, a limbo of infants, which has been somewhat set aside, and now a Limbo of Questionable Marriages?

My own parents were married in the parish rectory, because my dad was not Catholic and my mother was. In those days such a mixed marriage could not be had in the parish church, so they got married in the rectory, by the priest. That had nothing to do with the validity of their marriage. It was valid. The vows were pronounced. They were married in the eyes of the Church and the marriage recorded in the parish registry.

There is still no way of making a second marriage valid with respect to one party only. If the first marriage is valid, both are still married to each other. If the first marriage was not valid, both are not married to each other.

 

[clem456]

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.

This is just not correct, and it illustrates the problem that people are trying to point out which can result from the suggested approach.

You are confusing the culpability of the person with the objective morality of his actions.
The certain conscience of the individual is not the arbiter of right and wrong.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.
  …
  756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. (A misformed conscience, cannot make an evil act good) There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[JimG]

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.

The child’s decision settles nothing. If he had broken the host in two and gave half to his non-Catholic cousin, it would be the same thing: he is acting on feelings of empathy, not on sound doctrine.

 

[LongingSoul]

Oh my goodness! We have a Limbo of the Fathers, a limbo of infants, which has been somewhat set aside, and now a Limbo of Questionable Marriages?

My own parents were married in the parish rectory, because my dad was not Catholic and my mother was. In those days such a mixed marriage could not be had in the parish church, so they got married in the rectory, by the priest. That had nothing to do with the validity of their marriage. It was valid. The vows were pronounced. They were married in the eyes of the Church and the marriage recorded in the parish registry.

There is still no way of making a second marriage valid with respect to one party only. If the first marriage is valid, both are still married to each other. If the first marriage was not valid, both are not married to each other.

Why did the Church bother to change the practice of sacristy weddings if it was a perfect practice? Afterall, non Catholics are not worthy of the Mass and any sort of closeness to the altar. Why do you think the practice changed to bring a schismatic right into the heart of the Church sacrament?

 

[Brendan]

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.

But how could that conscience have certitude in that matter, what was that certitude based on? If he had knowledge, where was that knowledge gained, and what was the authority of that knowledge?

 

[pnewton]

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.

It is unquestionably a discipline of the Church. Whether it is a doctrine is something that not all agree on, as it requires a synthesis of various ideas, especially, we do allow communion if the first marriage was not valid and then the current marriage is convalidated. Again, this is part of the Church’s discipline. If it were not, we would not have marriage tribunals. Not all theologians, bishops and priests agree on the synthesis of doctrines used to raise this issue to the level of doctrine.

Whether one respects the ministry of all priests and bishops, including the ones mentioned in this thread, is up to them. People can choose to respect only those that agree with them and their opinion of what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[JimG]

Why did the Church bother to change the practice of sacristy weddings if it was a perfect practice? Afterall, non Catholics are not worthy of the Mass and any sort of closeness to the altar. Why do you think the practice changed to bring a schismatic right into the heart of the Church sacrament?

I have no idea why it was changed, or why it existed in the first place. I don’t think my father would have considered himself a schismatic, neither would my mother or the parish priest. He was simply non-Catholic. (Later he did become Catholic.)

I can think of several possible reasons for not allowing mixed marriages in the parish church. It emphasized that a nuptial Mass, which could only occur in the church, was an important aspect of a sacramental marriage. It emphasized the dangers of a mixed marriage, wherein the Catholic party had to take care not to endanger his or her own faith, or that of the future children. It was not a bad practice; it sure saved couples a lot of money, although back then, no one spent much money on weddings.

In any case, it was simply a disciplinary matter. Marriage is a doctrinal matter. A couple is either married validly or they are not. It cannot be one thing for the bride and a different thing for the groom.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is just not correct, and it illustrates the problem that people are trying to point out which can result from the suggested approach.

You are confusing the culpability of the person with the objective morality of his actions.
The certain conscience of the individual is not the arbiter of right and wrong.

The Church teaches that God’s natural moral law is inscribed on the conscience. It is thus part of man’s nature to know right from wrong. In a particular instance, this is known by “listening” to the certain voice of the conscience.

We were taught as young schoolchildren that a person had the ability to discern right from wrong by approximately the age of six, and that was why we were permitted to receive First Communion at that age but not before. We were taught that by then a person knew right from wrong and could discern whether or not they were in the state of mortal sin. The good sisters taught us to listen to our conscience and we would know when we needed to go to Confession.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have no idea why it was changed, or why it existed in the first place. I don’t think my father would have considered himself a schismatic, neither would my mother or the parish priest. He was simply non-Catholic. (Later he did become Catholic.)

I can think of several possible reasons for not allowing mixed marriages in the parish church. It emphasized that a nuptial Mass, which could only occur in the church, was an important aspect of a sacramental marriage. It emphasized the dangers of a mixed marriage, wherein the Catholic party had to take care not to endanger his or her own faith, or that of the future children. It was not a bad practice; it sure saved couples a lot of money, although back then, no one spent much money on weddings.

In any case, it was simply a disciplinary matter. Marriage is a doctrinal matter. A couple is either married validly or they are not. It cannot be one thing for the bride and a different thing for the groom.

It changed because the language of the Church changed towards non Catholics. Words like pagans, schismatics and perfidious Jews were scrapped from the language because they emphasised division and what kept us apart. That’s the power of changing language as Arch Coleridge has insisted in his synod blogs. The Church then specifically came out and said that Protestants born into that faith can’t be considered ‘schismatics’ even though technically they belonged to the schism.

We base the whole of teaching regarding Communion and the remarried around the language of ‘adultery’ but who is to say that in reality people without true faith even though they are baptised Catholic and attempt marriage in the Sacrament, are not innocent of that sin because of an inherited condition. (Poor catechises)… Just like Protestants are innocent of heresy because of an inherited condition (schism)

 

[JimG]

It changed because the language of the Church changed towards non Catholics. Words like pagans, schismatics and perfidious Jews were scrapped from the language because they emphasised division and what kept us apart. That’s the power of changing language as Arch Coleridge has insisted in his synod blogs. The Church then specifically came out and said that Protestants born into that faith can’t be considered ‘schismatics’ even though technically they belonged to the schism.

We base the whole of teaching regarding Communion and the remarried around the language of ‘adultery’ but who is to say that in reality people without true faith even though they are baptised Catholic and attempt marriage in the Sacrament, are not innocent of that sin because of an inherited condition. (Poor catechises)… Just like Protestants are innocent of heresy because of an inherited condition (schism)

Well, the problem with ‘adultery’ arises only because there is an already existing valid marriage. So it is the first marriage that is the root of the problem. If the first marriage is not valid because of poor catechesis or lack of faith, then that should be an issue for the marriage tribunal in considering validity. But the thrust of the argument has been to entirely disregard the fact of the first marriage.

 

[JimG]

The Church teaches that God’s natural moral law is inscribed on the conscience. It is thus part of man’s nature to know right from wrong. In a particular instance, this is known by “listening” to the certain voice of the conscience.

We were taught as young schoolchildren that a person had the ability to discern right from wrong by approximately the age of six, and that was why we were permitted to receive First Communion at that age but not before. We were taught that by then a person knew right from wrong and could discern whether or not they were in the state of mortal sin. The good sisters taught us to listen to our conscience and we would know when we needed to go to Confession.

But did they teach you that you would know when it was okay to decide to break a communion host in half?

 

[sarah_j]

Originally Posted by sarah j

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.

It is unquestionably a discipline of the Church. Whether it is a doctrine is something that not all agree on, as it requires a synthesis of various ideas, especially, we do allow communion if the first marriage was not valid and then the current marriage is convalidated. Again, this is part of the Church’s discipline. If it were not, we would not have marriage tribunals. Not all theologians, bishops and priests agree on the synthesis of doctrines used to raise this issue to the level of doctrine.

Whether one respects the ministry of all priests and bishops, including the ones mentioned in this thread, is up to them. People can choose to respect only those that agree with them and their opinion of what the Catholic Church teaches.

The indissoluability of marriage is a doctrine of the Church.
Some people are trying to blur the lines and say that the rules governing marriage/divorce are
merely discipline and as such are open to change, but that is incorrect.
Marriage is a sacrament; marriage tribunals judge only whether a marriage actually took place…they
cannot dissolve a marriage.

" 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. "

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

 

[Thomas_White]

But did they teach you that you would know when it was okay to decide to break a communion host in half?

No. Only that we would know, and if a bad choice were made the conscience would inform of this too. It is the certain feeling of guilt. I cannot know what the child experienced. The point is that we were on our own and trusted to appropriately receive Holy Communion at the age of six.

 

[clem456]

The Church teaches that God’s natural moral law is inscribed on the conscience. It is thus part of man’s nature to know right from wrong. In a particular instance, this is known by “listening” to the certain voice of the conscience.

We were taught as young schoolchildren that a person had the ability to discern right from wrong by approximately the age of six, and that was why we were permitted to receive First Communion at that age but not before. We were taught that by then a person knew right from wrong and could discern whether or not they were in the state of mortal sin. The good sisters taught us to listen to our conscience and we would know when we needed to go to Confession.

This issue is so hopelessly confused.

I give up.
Thom, what you are saying is correct in most of it’s observations, but the conclusions you come to are plain and simply, wrong.
You are confusing and conflating different things like culpability, conscience, morality.

 

[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.

Referring again to the article on the conscience by Cardinal Ratzinger:But the fact that the conviction a person has come to certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonization of subjectivity.* It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place**, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth.
*You equate “certainty of conscience” with truth, that whatever our conscience truly believes is by that fact alone, true. This is what Ratzinger dismisses as the “canonization of subjectivity.”

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, the problem with ‘adultery’ arises only because there is an already existing valid marriage. So it is the first marriage that is the root of the problem. If the first marriage is not valid because of poor catechesis or lack of faith, then that should be an issue for the marriage tribunal in considering validity. But the thrust of the argument has been to entirely disregard the fact of the first marriage.

The tribunal has limited ability and can even make mistakes. The thing about faith is that one can have problems discerning it for themselves even when they have very strong faith hence the great Saints entrusting their faith to a formal confessor or spiritual director.

The tribunal aren’t spiritual directors and at the moment the involvement of the local diocese in the way of confessor or spiritual director is not heavily emphasized in determining validity of a first marriage based on the state of faith at the time. That looks like changing out of all this. There are still many divorced/remarried Catholics who believe that their first marriage is valid based on the fact that they were in love and bonded at the time. A major question arises about whether that is the same as the chaste discernment of faith especially if the couple has a pre conjugal relationship which has become a common scenario since the advent of contraception. It’s only in consultation with a discerning spiritual director that some of these issues can come to light.

 

[Ender]

No.

I was really expecting to get agreement that the same act cannot be both right and wrong. If you and I, faced with the same situation, make opposite choices, it would seem to me that at least one of us must have chosen incorrectly.

Ender

 

[clem456]

Referring again to the article on the conscience by Cardinal Ratzinger:But the fact that the conviction a person has come to certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonization of subjectivity.* It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place***, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth.
You equate “certainty of conscience” with truth, that whatever our conscience truly believes is by that fact alone, true. This is what Ratzinger dismisses as the “canonization of subjectivity.”

Ender

I wish everyone would just stop talking and read this article from Cardinal Ratzinger. It is really not this complicated. It is hard because we are trying to bend the principles to fit an assumed conclusion, so in effect we are discarding the principles, the teaching, the doctrine to fit our purposes. You simply can’t do that and end up with anything but chaos.

 

[Ender]

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.

You cannot claim that because the doctrines are being changed for only a small group it doesn’t constitute a doctrinal change. The same problems exist even if the change affected only one person. Either the doctrines mean what they say or they don’t. Finding a way around them is the equivalent of nullifying them.

Ender

 

[clem456]

I was really expecting to get agreement that the same act cannot be both right and wrong. If you and I, faced with the same situation, make opposite choices, it would seem to me that at least one of us must have chosen incorrectly.

Ender

Maybe so, but some people would feel behind, and what could we talk about for the next two hours??? It can’t possibly be that simple.
Simplicity was once a virtue, but is now a stumbling block to the accomplishment of our own objectives.
(God is perfect simplicity )