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

[JimG]

“Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”

But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.”

The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

"It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact, one must do so. But it can be very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anemesis of being" (Joseph Ratzinger).

Conscience could only not err if there were no moral truth and right and wrong. For conscience to err about right and wrong, there must be a moral truth. To stifle “the protest of the anemesis of being” means to quell or crush the voice of conscience. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that this is very wrong, and it could fairly be said that this is to no longer hear the clear voice of one’s conscience and absent this moral compass a person is without an unerring knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Ender]

This reminds me of why I have you blocked. Ascribing false meaning to my argument is pretty dirty. I would never claim that subjective conscience has ‘justifying power’. That’s really very shameful of you.

Perhaps if you understood what was being said you would find it less objectionable. You asserted: “Eventually someones going to say it. ‘Hitler must be right because he followed his conscience’.” In the Ratzinger article that graciew drew our attention to there was just such an argument, which Ratzinger addressed, and utterly rejected. I cited that section not to suggest that you believed in the subjective conscience but to show where such a belief led. This whole thing goes to Thomas White’s argument, not yours. Please, read more carefully…or just keep me blocked.

We are specifically made aware that Gods law is written into each persons heart and is knowable.

This is very close to what White believes, and I think it goes too far if you mean to imply that *all *of God’s law has been given to all mankind.

We know that conscience is something that develops with use and hears the call of God to do good.

Why would the conscience need to develop if God’s law is already written on our hearts? The fact that development is necessary, and is fully possible only with the aid of the church, seems a good indicator that Cardinal Ratzinger’s expression is more accurate: “The sense for the good has been stamped upon us.”

Wanting to do good is always good even if the conscience is not properly formed. I have never proposed that the conscience can make something good from some justifying power.

But, but…if you read the Hitler argument, it was stipulated that Hitler wanted to do good. In his case it is certainly not true that wanting to do good is always good, so what is your basis for this claim?

I’d rather you didn’t address me thanks.

I don’t really address you; I address arguments. So long as you make assertions that seem questionable I will respond to them. In this case your Hitler comment simply provided an opportunity to cite another section of the Ratzinger article that I thought applied to White’s position. I cited it in response to his arguments, not yours.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

An allegory of how the law is inscribed on the conscience?

But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.”

[Note that ‘god’ is spelled with a small ‘g’]

“And he [God] said behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good from evil: now therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubins and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24).

Adam’s eating fruit from the tree of knowledge is an allegory. It is of course Original Sin. By the act, Adam’s free will is corrupted and so will man’s become corrupted as part of his own nature. By Original Sin, Augustine said in the Confessions that the result was man could no longer discern good from evil, most particularly with respect to vice (the sins of the flesh) without the grace of God. This is God’s punishment, though baptism will later become relevant. Adam is permanently removed from paradise and prohibited from learning the knowledge of the tree of life (eternal life) and must instead toil the earth. He must now earn the knowledge of eternal life and must make moral choices during the process. This becomes man’s nature (and his plight), but there is the conscience which is not corrupted, the original voice of God’s law and also part of man’s nature. This is perhaps why Adam’s gaining a subjective knowledge of good and evil (like that of a god) was sinful, for now Adam can decide for himself what is good and what is evil–but God imposes Original Sin. This is only my understanding of it (from the memory of long ago).

 

[Ender]

My belief? The Church has always taught the primacy of conscience.

This is what is being disputed. I don’t believe the church has ever taught this. Or perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by it. It would help if you explained what you think the phrase means.

It is not God’s law inscribed on the conscience that could ever err. The judgment of conscience when made in accordance with (faulty) reason can err, but God’s law inscribed on the conscience cannot possibly, and what is necessary is the certain judgment of conscience.

How are we to distinguish between a judgment made in accord with God’s law and a judgment made on the basis of faulty reason? If you and I, faced with exactly the same situation, make opposite choices, how are we to tell which of us chose rightly?

The Church does not say that the "conscience itself makes an ‘erroneous judgment’ " in accordance with divine law. Neither does Joseph Ratzinger. This is not possible.

I think this gets closer to the point that separates us. You believe the conscience is inerrant because it contains God’s law, which is inerrant, but what does this imply? If a fully informed conscience is inherent in each of us, why would it have to develop? In fact, if it was already complete, how could it develop? If development is necessary it can only be because the conscience is not completely formed. That is, it is not completely informed.

Contrary to your assertion, Ratzinger does believe the conscience can err.By the way, a look into Sacred Scripture should have precluded such diagnoses and such a theory of justification by the errant conscience. In Psalm 19:12-13, we find the ever worth pondering passage: “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from my unknown faults.” That is not Old Testament objectivism, but profoundest human wisdom.
What he is referring to here is man’s inability to even know all of his own faults, surely a conscience that cannot detect faults is errant.

The concept that an interior and inherent law is universal but not subjective is perhaps not so easily understood…

We agree that such a law exists. We disagree about whether it exists in every human being.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Perhaps if you understood what was being said you would find it less objectionable. You asserted: “Eventually someones going to say it. ‘Hitler must be right because he followed his conscience’.” In the Ratzinger article that graciew drew our attention to there was just such an argument, which Ratzinger addressed, and utterly rejected. I cited that section not to suggest that you believed in the subjective conscience but to show where such a belief led. This whole thing goes to Thomas White’s argument, not yours. Please, read more carefully…or just keep me blocked.

This is very close to what White believes, and I think it goes too far if you mean to imply that *all *of God’s law has been given to all mankind.

This is very close to what ‘White’ believes then-Cardinal Ratzinger has said and what the CCC says. Though I might err, what I might say should not be construed to imply that I am in any way intentionally changing Church teaching. This is only noted and here at least is easy to excuse.

What I believe, and what I think is in accordance with what Joseph Ratzinger has said (and as is provided several times in the thread) is that, at the least, what is inscribed on the conscience is knowledge of right from wrong and that man can discern this truth. What precisely is inscribed on man’s conscience, in whatever might be its detail, would only be speculation and the presumption that one could fully know God’s law. What I believe is that the ability to discern right from wrong, as the certain judgment of conscience, is existential and arises in the moment.

If man does not have a conscience that inherently knows right from wrong, what then is a sociopath?

‘White’ made the unfortunate error of using this name as a screen name when he sighed up for the forum, and, much to his chagrin, cannot change it.]

 

[Ender]

"It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact, one must do so. But it can be very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anemesis of being" (Joseph Ratzinger).

Conscience could only not err if there were no moral truth and right and wrong. For conscience to err about right and wrong, there must be a moral truth. To stifle “the protest of the anemesis of being” means to quell or crush the voice of conscience. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that this is very wrong, and it could fairly be said that this is to no longer hear the clear voice of one’s conscience and absent this moral compass a person is without an unerring knowledge of right and wrong.

To say, as Ratzinger does here, that our convictions can lead us astray because we have suppressed the feelings of conscience, and that it was the initial suppression and not the conscience itself that was at fault, does not mean that the conscience cannot err. It only means that it was not the conscience that was initially at fault, even though it is wrong now.
**Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand… *
What Ratzinger rejected appears to be your belief that a conscience is inerrant when it is certain.…it is possible to draw some initial conclusions with a view toward answering the question regarding the essence of conscience. We can now say: it will not do to identify man’s conscience with the self-consciousness of the I,** with its subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior**.*
You assert the conscience cannot err. This is not what the church teaches; she speaks rather constantly of the erroneous conscience, and the only reason she can do so is because she see the conscience as something that needs to be formed, and that it can be both formed and deformed.

Ender

 

[JimG]

A judgment of conscience is a human judgment. Of course human judgments can err. God’s law is not in error, but it is not God’s law making the judgment of conscience. One doesn’t just flick the “conscience switch” and boom, the correct moral judgment pops out. That’s not how human beings are made. Conscience is a human moral judgment.

Eve judged wrongly, and that was before original sin. Adam judged wrongly. And so has every human being since then. But hey, having judged wrongly from the beginning, we are now like the god’s, “knowing good and evil!” The way we judge must be correct! That’s what could be called hubris.

 

[I_trust]

The Church does not say that the "conscience itself makes an ‘erroneous judgment’ " in accordance with divine law. Neither does Joseph Ratzinger. This is not possible.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1786 Faced with a moral choice, **conscience can make **either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

 

[Ender]

This is very close to what ‘White’ believes then-Cardinal Ratzinger has said and what the CCC says. Though I might err, what I might say should not be construed to imply that I am in any way intentionally changing Church teaching. This is only noted and here at least is easy to excuse.

I believe your position is mistaken. I have never considered the possibility that you were intentionally distorting church teaching.

What I believe, and what I think is in accordance with what Joseph Ratzinger has said (and as is provided several times in the thread) is that, at the least, what is inscribed on the conscience is knowledge of right from wrong and that man can discern this truth. What precisely is inscribed on man’s conscience, in whatever might be its detail, would only be speculation and the presumption that one could fully know God’s law. What I believe is that the ability to discern right from wrong, as the certain judgment of conscience, is existential and arises in the moment.

What I believe is that a sense of right and wrong is inscribed on the conscience, that God’s truth can be learned but it takes a lifetime of development, that the conscience can indeed err, and that certainty is no guarantor of truth.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. (Ratzinger)
We may possess the ability to know God’s law, but that does not mean that what we believe we know is actually true. The conscience can err, and it may do so even if it is properly formed. “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from my unknown faults.” That is not Old Testament objectivism, but profoundest human wisdom.
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

But not in accordance with divine law and a certain judgment of conscience. It is reason that might err. That a person could err from ‘the certain judgment of conscience’ is a serious disturbance. Environment also plays a role. If it were profound, it results in the behavior of a sociopath (a person that does not know right from wrong).

It is becoming difficult to understand (somewhat) why the truth of this gift is resisted. However, it could possibly help to provide an understanding of what is a spiritual crisis in western society. In view of what I have mentioned was a Catholic education taught by members of religious orders in the pre-Vatican II era, and, beginning at age six the personal experience of it with respect to conscience, it would not be easy to reject what then-Cardinal Ratzinger has said and what the CCC says about conscience.

It is a bit astonishing that this tradional Catholic teaching seems virtually unknown by a few.

 

[clem456]

What I believe is that a sense of right and wrong is inscribed on the conscience, that God’s truth can be learned but it takes a lifetime of development, that the conscience can indeed err, and that certainty is no guarantor of truth.

​

Right. The innate quality is this:
that a human being knows there is truth to be pursued.

God has given every human being a “teaser”, so to speak, that leads one to pursue him in truth. That is the innate quality, and that’s it. Man acts freely from there.

God hardwires every human being to pursue him in truth but the specific content of that truth is to be known through human acting and development, etc… Every person has a conscience, not every person has a well formed conscience. We respect that every person is given by God this capacity to know the truth.

The possession of a properly formed conscience is not innate.

Basically the innate quality of conscience is, that everyone has one.

This issue is being over-thought.
And why am I paraphrasing what the CCC and Ratzinger so clearly state?
I dunno.​

 

[Thomas_White]

I believe your position is mistaken. I have never considered the possibility that you were intentionally distorting church teaching.

What I believe is that a sense of right and wrong is inscribed on the conscience, that God’s truth can be learned but it takes a lifetime of development…"

So what ought a person to do, for example beginning at age six, while awaiting what will not occur without a lifetime of development? :takeoff:

 

[Mongo]

So what ought a person to do, for example beginning at age six, while awaiting what will not occur without a lifetime of development? :takeoff:

They act from where they are, either in accordance with or contrary to their conscience as it is. The formation of conscience is a process, and God meats a person where they are.

 

[Thomas_White]

They act from where they are, either in accordance with or contrary to their conscience as it is. The formation of conscience is a process, and God meats a person where they are.

Yes, I know that God meets a person where they are and that this is important to Pope Francis. He also says God will not just meet but will find a person where they are. I can see that if God is there for a person how it would be true of conscience.

 

[Mongo]

Yes, I know that God meets a person where they are and that this is important to Pope Francis. He also says God will not just meet but will find a person where they are. I can see that if God is there for a person it would be true of conscience.

My point is that a person acts from where they are. They don’t have to wait until they die. They may sin and they may make mistakes, but they do what they know. A mans conscience calls him to act according to the truth as he knows it. But he must be willing to grow at the same time.

It may be the case that a mans conscience accuses him falsely, or it may be the case that it doesn’t accuse him when it should. Either way it is false, and he must grow and act according the truth as he knows it.

 

[JimG]

So what ought a person to do, for example beginning at age six, while awaiting what will not occur without a lifetime of development? :takeoff:

Nothing at all, since beginning at age six, children always make correct moral choices, never going wrong. That’s why we love them.

Some parents try to teach them right from wrong, not realizing that they already have an infallible ability to choose rightly.

 

[Mongo]

Right. The innate quality is this:
that a human being knows there is truth to be pursued.

God has given every human being a “teaser”, so to speak, that leads one to pursue him in truth. That is the innate quality, and that’s it. Man acts freely from there.

God hardwires every human being to pursue him in truth but the specific content of that truth is to be known through human acting and development, etc… Every person has a conscience, not every person has a well formed conscience. We respect that every person is given by God this capacity to know the truth.

The possession of a properly formed conscience is not innate.

Basically the innate quality of conscience is, that everyone has one.

This issue is being over-thought.
And why am I paraphrasing what the CCC and Ratzinger so clearly state?
I dunno.

True. The concept of conscience isn’t to say that an individual necessarily knows right from wrong. It is an assertion that there is truth and there is good and evil, and consequently there is right and wrong. A person must be open and willing to learn what that truth is. It is a rational and an ascetic pursuit of the good. A man must be willing to do what he has to to follow the truth both in thinking and in action. Over time, hopefully he will form certain virtues of mind and action that help him to think and act according to truth.

 

[Thomas_White]

Nothing at all, since beginning at age six, children always make correct moral choices, never going wrong. That’s why we love them.

Some parents try to teach them right from wrong, not realizing that they already have an infallible ability to choose rightly.

:nun2: This is closer. It is ultimately about who determines what is right and what is wrong and the fear of losing the presumed right to judge others.

 

[JimG]

:nun2: This is closer. It is ultimately about who determines what is right and what is wrong and the fear of losing the presumed right to judge others.

I think I understand. Conscience must always be preserved to ensure the right to ignore the moral teachings of the Church, to always preserve the ability to do it my own way. Ultimately, I can always opt out of following the moral law by appealing to conscience.

It’s rather like the serpent appealing to Adam and Eve’s desire to have it their own way.

Who decides what is right and wrong? Why, I DO, of course. I am like a god!

/sarcasm