M
Mongo
Guest
So the churches teaching on conscience is just a tool to deny every other teaching of the church?
Chicago's Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but person's conscience inviolable
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Only when you need it to do something the Church says you shouldn’t! It’s a trump card!
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Well, a person should be careful not to let this presumption go to their head. Sarcasm is of course a form of verbal aggression and is used as a control mechanism and for venting frustration.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Not hardly. The teaching on conscience is itself Church teaching. I realize this important teaching must no longer be taught (or emphasized) as it once was. But I assure you it once was so taught and much emphasized.
M
Mongo
Guest
It was never taught or believed how you believe it, not even by the pope who promulgated the document (the ccc) that you believe asserts what you believe.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he was not laid upon himself but which he must obey. It’s voice, ever calling 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…His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echos in its depths” (CCC 1776).
“A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).
Obviously: “Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act” (CCC 1796). This is conscious awareness and becomes knowledge.
Tell me where the final synod document and it recognition of the “internal forum” (the forum of conscience) that were released today, as well as today’s remarks by Pope Francis, are in disagreement with any comment I have made on this thread.
thefiscaltimes.com/latestnews/2015/10/24/Vatican-synod-ends-opening-divorcees-no-change-gays
M
Mongo
Guest
It doesn’t matter what this pope or synod teaches you have already shown that you don’t care what the pope teaches by your rejection of pope John Paul II’s teaching, and by your rejection of the clear teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage. So it is pointless to even argue it anymore. The only reason why you reference this pope, or even conscience, is as a tool to use against catholic doctrine.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
That much is correct, but I’m not sure style points are awarded for empty rhetoric. :takeoff:
B
Brendan
Guest
But we agree that the conscience cannot direct to evil (as CCC 1776) noted, and that would include all that God has revealed to the Church as being evil.
Do we agree on that?
Also, it is only the certain judgement that must be followed, and therefore the moral judgement has to be based on an infallible source, correct? Without that, certitude is lacking and there is no obligation to follow.
Correct?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is the teaching that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed, but the conscience can err and even the certain judgment of conscience can err. There is a dynamic, and the teaching is that there can be a disturbance or problem concerning anemnesis. Among other things, this concerns the etiosis of sociopathy.
I no longer believe this is suitable for a forum discussion. In view of several comments, I no longer care to participate in the discussion anyway. It is apparent that in instances it has become too complex.
B
Brendan
Guest
I understand, but I would like some clarification on how one gains certitude if the source is fallible? That seems contradictory. Having a source of knowledge on what is good and what is evil is infallible, such as the Church, would seem to the only means by which certitude is gained.
My question seems pretty clear, does it not?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Sure, I will try to answer the question.
Z
zz912
Guest
Has any reporter asked the Archbishop about the conscience of the pastor? What if his conscience says that he must not give Communion to the divorced and remarried? Will the Archbishop respect the pastor’s conscience?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
This question is with respect to the OP, as is the answer provided.
The language of both CCC 1776 and 1780 is plain, clear and unambiguous. I cannot see how an understanding of what is Important can be gotten by logic and analysis. One either understands through experience what is important concerning conscience or one does not–i.e., the real is above the idea. This could be explained by saying the understanding is a synthesis known by intuition and not by reason and logical argument.
Why would it be the case it is ‘only’ the certain judgement of conscience that must be followed? This is not stated in the two propositions (CCC 1776 and 1789). If a person were not quite sure what to do in a given situation, how would an act that was immoral thereby be excused? Perhaps the person is not listening to the voice of conscience and does not hear it. To the assertion that if ‘certitude is lacking there is no obligation to follow’, it must be asked, “How would one follow what is lacking?” Ought one not do what is right?
When Archbishop Cupich made his remarks concerning conscience, there was then an attempt to deconstruct his comments by logical analysis. With all due respect, I do not believe this method could result in an understanding of those remarks, and what follows is then more discussion and debate without closure. It is noted that with respect to the question of the divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion, the final synod document, following lengthy discussion and debate, recommends what in essence are the provisions of Canon130 of the 1983 code of Canon Law.
As explained, the attempt to answer the question is not an attempt to say Church teaching is in any way unimportant or that a Catholic need not follow it. This is a misunderstanding of what is only an attempt to answer a difficult question concerning conscience as it is relative to Archbishop Cupich’s comments on it. The attempt is made with all due respect and intended in charity. Peace.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not sure if this is a matter of conscience, but I am sure the AB would respect the decision
E
Ender
Guest
Their clarity, however, is modified by other sections, such as these:1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.
Again, if educating the conscience is a lifelong task it can hardly be true that God’s law is fully known even to children.1783 … the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
So, if the conscience is not educated, and we are all naturally tempted to prefer our own judgment, how do I know that something I believe, even with certainty, is true and not merely a rationalization? What does it mean to educate the conscience if I may prefer the judgment of my conscience over the doctrines of the church? If the church is not right how can I learn anything by studying her teachings? How, in fact, would it be possible to educate my conscience? 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.
How are we to know what the divine law is? Is it:
(1) whatever I sincerely believe it to be? Or,
(2) what the church teaches?
Even though you have chosen (1) it should be apparent that this cannot be true. Faced with identical moral choices, two people can make judgments that are directly contrary to one another. In an absolute sense, at least one of them must be wrong, but in a relative sense, if truth is whatever one believes it to be, they can both be right. Truth itself ceases to exist and all we are left with is individual preference.1790* A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself…*
You interpret this to signify that certainty guarantees correctness; that a certain conscience cannot err. This is not what the church teaches.*…Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
*Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Is it God’s law inscribed on the conscience that requires educating?
How does it logically follow that God’s law inscribed on the conscience is not ‘educated’? There is perhaps a bit of semantics involved, and if so likely for the convenience of discussion and thus an instance where logic and analysis fail by a literal understanding. How could the ‘conscience’ really be what is educated? It perhaps could be said that the conscience is educated in the sense that a muscle is ‘educated’, but then the fact is that the conscience is intangible and not a material thing. Is it not that it is the mind that is educated and that reason then becomes the factor?
With all due respect, it is noted that the duality of the concepts of subject and object (e.g., the internal and external forums) have been a focus of western philosophy for more than 2,500 years. The attempt to bridge this duality has proven unsuccessful, and it has been said that this failure has resulted in the death of metaphysics. Adadamic philosophy has in consequence largely turned to analysis, in the way of science. Also as noted, the question quickly becomes very complex, and I believe the way of analysis is futile in any attempt at understanding. However, the concept of the voice of conscience is, or should be, simple to understand through experience. This approach indeed is (or once was) taught to children.
How are we to know whether divine law is sincere belief or what the Church teaches? This is a true/false, either/or question that cannot be solved by logic. It also again casts the question in a subject/object duality. Is it any wonder the plain, clear and unambiguous language of CCC 1776 and 1800 then seems not plain, clear and unambiguous? This approach is futile and so is the logic that follows. What is the point? Is it that conscience has no meaning and that, despite the teaching that one must follow the certain judgment of conscience, a person must invariably follow Church teaching? Is this not legalism?
It is presumed a Catholic is familiar with the Rosary. The mysteries, through contemplation, reveal many things. In the last of the Joyful Mysteries, Jesus is presented to the Temple and in the last mystery is found speaking in the Temple and presenting the Word to the amazement of the teachers of the Law. What then is revealed by the very next mystery, the first of the Sorrowful Mysteries?
B
Brendan
Guest
I just want to clarify that the law that is writing on the heart is the law of God, and not some other law.
And I am a bit unsure of what you mean when you claim “I cannot see how an understanding of what is Important can be gotten by logic and analysis”. Why is understanding set apart from analysis?
The Church has noted that the natural moral law CAN be known through Reason, but you seem to be rejecting Reason as a means of knowning that.
Let’s use the case of artificial contraception. We known from the Deposit of Faith, that such use in intrinsically immoral. That is the law of God, and therefore the same law that is written on our hearts.
Ergo, if we accept CCC 1776 and the conscience is what leads us to avoid evil. Contraception is intrinsically evil, ergo a conscience that leads one to use contraception is, by definition, a mal formed one.
A malformed conscience, again, has not certitude and it’s judgments are not to be obeyed.
Is that your understanding of what conscience is?
That came in CCC 1800, you yourself paraphrased it to me.
Here is your own statement ; "It is the teaching that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed, "
If you disagree, where is it in Church teaching that uncertain judgements of conscience must be obeyed. Can you provide a CCC citation please?
The Church clearly and unambiguously put in the qualifier of ‘certain’, which distinguishes the judgments of conscience that must be obeyed verses any other judgments of conscience.
I hope I have clarified my question, and to further clarify it. How can one arrive a certain judgement of the source of knowledge is fallible. Any reliance on fallible sources, by definition, does not have certitude
So I would claim that the only moral judgements that have certitude, and thus under CCC 1800, must be obeyed, are ones that relily on infallible moral teachings. I can only think of the Church that has such infallibility. Do you know of other sources.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is the teaching that the law inscribed on the conscience is God’s law. That CCC 1776 says this law is inscribed on the heart and not the intellect provides the meaning for why this understanding is not from reason. What might seem mysterious is that the certain judgment of conscious is not of the intellect, reason or learned but is innate. This is what apparently is confusing.
It is this source of understanding that is not itself open to analysis. It is far closer to what is known through faith and belief and could be understood as mysticism. It is in its way like the belief in God’s existence, a belief not given to reasoned analysis. Its Importance is not of the matter-of-fact, that which is learned, but a synthesis and a general type of understanding, e.g., knowing right from wrong. Difficult to explain, perhaps–but not an understanding gained from all the untold myriad of possibilities in their detail but more like a general understanding that reveals what is Important. This cannot be learned. Though not quite the same here, it is in a way how poetry can provide more than its words, the meaning of art more than the painting, music more than is heard.* This is experienced.*
What you say is my own statement Is the teaching of the Church. It is understood, as you say above, that your belief is that only the teaching of the Church could provide the certain moral judgment a person must follow. It is thus not uncharitable to point out that this is not only an incorrect understanding of the teaching on conscience but also legalism. It is, after all, what the discussion of the OP is really about. Perhaps it would provide clarity to say the certain judgment of conscience a person must obey is spiritual. It is transcendent.
C
clem456
Guest
This is at best a half-truth (which is the worst kind of truth).
Man has a relationship with God, who does not violate his free will. God writes the law on the heart, man plays his part also. The inscription of conscience on the human heart does not lay there like a dead letter. And God does not inscribe conscience on hearts of stone.
Reason is very much an integral part of bringing to life a well formed conscience.
- Status