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

[TMC]

I confess to not following this entire 390+ post thread closely, but isn’t it true that the synod report says pretty much exactly the same thing that Archbishop Cupich said? That these issues must be settle by the “internal forum” on a case-by-case basis? So it appears the Archbishop is in accord with at least 2/3 of the synod fathers. I did not find his comments wrong or off-base before, now it seems they are simply a restatement of the synod’s findings, and well within the scope of Church teaching.

 

[JimG]

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.

Thomas, looking back at your post, #382, you said, “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.”

–So, if the certain judgment of conscience can err, what is the argument about?

 

[Mongo]

Thomas, looking back at your post, #382, you said, “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.”

–So, if the certain judgment of conscience can err, what is the argument about?

That is what I am wondering.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is at best a half-truth (which is the worst kind of truth).

Really? What half of CCC 1776 do you think is a half truth (and the worst kind of truth)?

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its 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."

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.

And who said God inscribed conscience on hearts of stone, whatever that could mean when conscience is already deep within man’s heart. I guess we have explained this often enough. Seriously, you would do better to first come to the realization that you do not understand either the teaching or the argument before you begin judging another person. I say this charitably.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, looking back at your post, #382, you said, “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.”

–So, if the certain judgment of conscience can err, what is the argument about?

JimG, that the certain judgment of conscience could err is the teaching of Joseph Ratzinger. It involves a disturbance of anemnesis. What is the argument about? I am not entirely sure, really, although it appears to concern legalism, an obvious question relative to the OP as well as Pope Francis, most recently voiced in this remarks on Saturday. There is an indirect question as to the possibility of spirituality for a person.

 

[clem456]

Really? What half of CCC 1776 do you think is a half truth (and the worst kind of truth)?

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its 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."

C’mon Thomas.
That is a quote from the catechism.
This is what you actually said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas White View Post
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.

Are you being intentionally disingenuous?

And who said God inscribed conscience on hearts of stone, whatever that could mean when conscience is already deep within man’s heart. I guess we have explained this often enough. Seriously, you would do better to first come to the realization that you do not understand either the teaching or the argument before you begin judging another person. I say this charitably.

The legs came off your stool long ago, and you are the last to realize it.
One of the aspects of charity that is indispensable is good faith discussion.

 

[JimG]

JimG, that the certain judgment of conscience could err is the teaching of Joseph Ratzinger. It involves a disturbance of anemnesis. What is the argument about? I am not entirely sure, really, although it appears to concern legalism, an obvious question relative to the OP as well as Pope Francis, most recently voiced in this remarks on Saturday. There is an indirect question as to the possibility of spirituality for a person.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were stating this as the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger and of the Church and your own belief as well.

Still, it is stated in the Catechism that “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. (#1786)

I don’t dispute that a man must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience (#1790).

One must follow even an erroneous conscience, but man has a duty to properly inform his conscience.

Perhaps the difficulty is in the phrase “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.”

What does it mean to have in the human heart a law inscribed by God? Humans are composed of body and soul. The faculties of the soul are intellect and will. A judgment of conscience is an act of the intellect, which produces judgments.

I don’t think that the entire content of the divine law could be inscribed in the intellect, since the human intellect is finite. Both the intellect and the will are formed in the image of God, the intellect seeking truth, the will seeking the good. That divine formation of the human will to seek the good is indeed innate, even though weakened by original sin.

So, though humans are designed—imprinted—to seek the good and the true, even with that divine imprinting they are, because of darkening of the intellect and a weakened will, able to choose the false and the bad.

That’s my take on the meaning of God’s law inscribed in the human heart, but I suppose that volumes could be written about it. I don’t think that it means the conscience can never err, because even though the divine law is imprinted, it must be acted upon by a human intellect and a human will, which are fallible.

It’s not a matter of either moral legalism, or moral laxity. It’s informing the intellect to know the moral law, and strengthening the will to act on it, with the help of divine grace.

 

[Brendan]

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.

Perhaps you did not read CCC 1777, where the Church states

Conscience is a judgment of reason

So you would seem to be in error in your understanding of the Church’s teaching in regards to conscience

Perhaps it would provide clarity to say the certain judgment of conscience a person must obey is spiritual. It is transcendent.

Yes the Intellect and Reason are powers of the soul, so they are spiritual in nature

 

[Brendan]

. It is in its way like the belief in God’s existence, a belief not given to reasoned analysis…

That statement is also in error, the Church holds that the existence of God CAN be discovered via Reason.

Augustine, Anslem and Aquinas gave several proofs in that regard.

 

[Thomas_White]

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were stating this as the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger and of the Church and your own belief as well.

Still, it is stated in the Catechism that “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. (#1786)

I don’t dispute that a man must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience (#1790).

One must follow even an erroneous conscience, but man has a duty to properly inform his conscience.

Perhaps the difficulty is in the phrase “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.”

Yes, I think this is only a manner of speaking by whoever wrote CCC 1776, particularly since 1776 begins “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law…” The meaning is surely the conscience and not literally the heart.

What does it mean to have in the human heart a law inscribed by God? Humans are composed of body and soul. The faculties of the soul are intellect and will. A judgment of conscience is an act of the intellect, which produces judgments.

It surely means that God’s law is inherent in man as part of his nature. The certain judgment of conscious obviously requires an awareness of it, and this awareness is of the intellect, mind or consciousness. Reason and the relation to Church teaching could certainly become part of this. But I would not say the certain judgment of conscience originates in the intellect. The is crux of the matter. In my experience at least it is a feeling, as is guilt. This could be said to be from the heart (also as a manner of speaking).

I don’t think that the entire content of the divine law could be inscribed in the intellect, since the human intellect is finite. Both the intellect and the will are formed in the image of God, the intellect seeking truth, the will seeking the good. That divine formation of the human will to seek the good is indeed innate, even though weakened by original sin.

While the intellect and the will are in the image of God, the human intellect is in comparison to what is infinite vastly limited. The will, or free will, is part of man’s nature but corrupted by Original Sin.

So, though humans are designed—imprinted—to seek the good and the true, even with that divine imprinting they are, because of darkening of the intellect and a weakened will, able to choose the false and the bad.

That’s my take on the meaning of God’s law inscribed in the human heart, but I suppose that volumes could be written about it. I don’t think that it means the conscience can never err, because even though the divine law is imprinted, it must be acted upon by a human intellect and a human will, which are fallible.

I don’t think the conscience can never err either. But what I see important here is Joseph Ratzinger’s teaching (as a theologian and even before he was a Cardinal) that the certain judgment of conscience can err as the result of some difficulty concerning anemnesis (as we would see in the worst case as the behavior of a sociopath). From experience, it seems this this is far more prevalent than one might think and for a variety of reasons. Other than sociopathy, I believe this is largely environmental. To be realistic, prisons are full of such individuals who see nothing as their own fault. As for the conscience to err absent a certain judgment, there is no doubt that error can occur.

It’s not a matter of either moral legalism, or moral laxity. It’s informing the intellect to know the moral law, and strengthening the will to act on it, with the help of divine grace.

I think a sure sign of legalism is the presumed guilt of others and the righteous judgment of it when the argument relies on doctrine. This is rather evident, is it not? To be honest, I don’t see why the divorced and married receiving communion is a thing I need to be going on about. It is quite simple: a person in grave sin ought not receive Holy Communion, and I cannot know this and thus cannot judge it either.

In an instance or two, legalism has in essence been stated as the reason for objection. What I see as a problem is to place anything as an ultimate authority between God and a person. What of prayer? What of spirituality? To require an ultimate arbiter here is absolutely not the teaching of the Church nor has it ever been. I understand the teaching on conscience in the same way.

 

[Brendan]

.** But I would not say the certain judgment of conscience originates in the intellect**. The is crux of the matter. In my experience at least it is a feeling, as is guilt. This could be said to be from the heart (also as a manner of speaking).

But that that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches ( CCC 1777) that conscience is an act of Reason, which is a faculty of the intellect.

And that is supported by Aquinas, who defined ‘conscience’ as

Conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action.” (ST I a.79.13

And also refered to it as an aspect of the intellect

newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm#article13

One other thing that Aquinas points out is the very name con ( with) scienta (knowledge) defines it as an act of the intellect.

So I agree that it is the crux of the matter. Do you have any support for your premise that conscience is emotive?

I don’t think the conscience can never err either. But what I see important here is Joseph Ratzinger’s teaching (as a theologian and even before he was a Cardinal) that the certain judgment of conscience can err as the result of some difficulty concerning anemnesis .

Where does Cardinal Ratzinger state that the certain judgements of conscience err. He made a statement of judgements of conscience, but not that they were ones with certitudte

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.

Could you provide the quote where he makes such a claim about certain judgements

 

[Brendan]

Also, here is the definition from the Modern Catholic Dictionary

CONSCIENCE. The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.

It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.

Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.

These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God’s supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.

Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.

That work was by Servant of God, Fr John Hardon, SJ

He was the author of the 1975 Catechism, and Pope John Paul II requested him to author the 1983 Catechism. Fr Hardon declined due to poor health.

The Modern Catholic Dictionary has both an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur

Can you find a source of similar or greater authority that teaches that the conscience is anything other than an act of the intellect.

 

[Thomas_White]

But that that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches ( CCC 1777) that conscience is an act of Reason, which is a faculty of the intellect.

And that is supported by Aquinas, who defined ‘conscience’ as

Conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action.” (ST I a.79.13

And also refered to it as an aspect of the intellect

newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm#article13

No. CCC 1777 does not say this. CCC 1788, however, begins by saying “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act…” This cannot be understood by altering it to read that “conscience is an act of Reason”.

This refers to conscious awareness and the intellect, but obviously a person’s reason cannot be the voice of God’s law. It means a person is able through reason to recognize right and wrong brought to awareness by the voice of conscience but not hardly that man’s reason is the voice of God. That a person must know what is the voice of God’s law to ever follow it with certainty is the obvious point. It would be similarly wrong to act otherwise.

One other thing that Aquinas points out is the very name con ( with) scienta (knowledge) defines it as an act of the intellect.

See the link below an explanation of how Aquinas does not provide a full explanation.

So I agree that it is the crux of the matter. Do you have any support for your premise that conscience is emotive?

CCC 1776.

Where does Cardinal Ratzinger state that the certain judgements of conscience err. He made a statement of judgements of conscience, but not that they were ones with certitudte

Could you provide the quote where he makes such a claim about certain judgements

“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 anemnesis 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 dead to the internal promptings of truth” (Conscience and Truth, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).

A link to the above quote was also provided earlier in the thread:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

In the interest of brevity: the internal forum is the forum of conscience. This is between God and man. The certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed. The external forum is where Church authority is determinative. Canon 130 of the 1983 code of Canon Law provides this teaching.

 

[Brendan]

No. CCC 1777 does not say this. CCC 1788, however, begins by saying “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act…” This cannot be understood by altering it to read that “conscience is an act of Reason”.

Are you trying to say that a judgement of reason is not an act of reason? That a judgment by the Reason is not an act thereof?

This refers to conscious awareness and the intellect, but obviously a person’s reason cannot be the voice of God’s law. It means a person is able through reason to recognize right and wrong brought to awareness by the voice of conscience but not hardly that man’s reason is the voice of God. That a person must know what is the voice of God’s law to ever follow it with certainty is the obvious point. It would be similarly wrong to act otherwise.

No one said that Reason is the voice of God. What I was addressing was your denial that the conscience is an act of the Reason, that the conscience originates in the Intellect

We can see that in the Catechism

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law

The law is placed there, but it is discovered ( knowledge of it gained) . That is an act of the intellect.

We see that again in the Modern Catholic Dictionary

Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.

These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God’s supernatural revelation

Conscience ( and again look at the very name) is an intellectual response to the law of God. It not only presupposes Reason, it requires it.

See the link below an explanation of how Aquinas does not provide a full explanation.

Which link is that? The one from Cardinal Ratzinger. If so, where does Cardinal Ratzinger make any statements that contradict what Aquinas stated? That Conscience is an act of the Intellect. In fact, quite the opposite, he references internal promptings of truth. The determination of truth and falsehood are acts of the intellect.

“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 anemnesis 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 dead to the internal promptings of truth” (Conscience and Truth, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).

That did not answer my question, as I requested a quotation where he addressed CERTAIN judgements of conscience.

Let me provide you your own quotation

I don’t think the conscience can never err either. But what I see important here is Joseph Ratzinger’s teaching (as a theologian and even before he was a Cardinal) that the certain judgment of conscience can err as the result of some difficulty concerning anemnesis .

Where does he address certain judgements, as opposed to other judgements?

In the interest of brevity: the internal forum is the forum of conscience. This is between God and man. The certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed. The external forum is where Church authority is determinative. Canon 130 of the 1983 code of Canon Law provides this teaching.

I agree, that CERTAIN judgements of conscience must be obeyed. Erroneous ones do not. Cardinal Ratzinger made no claim that the two are, or can be, the same.

 

[Brendan]

Here is Aquinas on the subject

I answer that, Properly speaking, conscience is not a power, but an act. This is evident both from the very name and from those things which in the common way of speaking are attributed to conscience. For conscience, according to the very nature of the word, implies the relation of knowledge to something: for conscience may be resolved into “cum alio scientia,” i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case. But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act. Wherefore from this explanation of the name it is clear that conscience is an act.

The same is manifest from those things which are attributed to conscience. For conscience is said to witness, to bind, or incite, and also to accuse, torment, or rebuke. And all these follow the application of knowledge or science to what we do: which application is made in three ways. One way in so far as we recognize that we have done or not done something; “Thy conscience knoweth that thou hast often spoken evil of others” (Ecclesiastes 7:23), and according to this, conscience is said to witness. In another way, so far as through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done; and in this sense, conscience is said to incite or to bind. In the third way, so far as by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to excuse, accuse, or torment. Now, it is clear that all these things follow the actual application of knowledge to what we do

Could you point out, with references, where any statement by Cardinal Ratzinger either negates what Aquinas is stating, specifically in regards to conscience being an act, specifically of the intellect.

 

[clem456]

…
In the interest of brevity: the internal forum is the forum of conscience. This is between God and man. The certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed. The external forum is where Church authority is determinative. Canon 130 of the 1983 code of Canon Law provides this teaching.

This is canon 130 Thomas, direct quote from the code.

Can. 130 Of itself, the power of governance is exercised for the external forum; sometimes, however, it is exercised for the internal forum alone, so that the effects which its exercise is meant to have for the external forum are not recognized there, except insofar as the law establishes it in determined cases.

Also note, the context is “power of governance”.

Another thing to keep in mind is, marriage is not a private matter. That it has elements of privacy does not make the sacrament private.

 

[pnewton]

The Modern Catholic Dictionary has both an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur

Can you find a source of similar or greater authority…

Not to argue with the content, but I do not want this to actually be considered to be a sign of authority greater than that which a bishop says. These two are given at the level of a bishop and are second hand authority of a single bishop.

 

[Brendan]

Not to argue with the content, but I do not want this to actual be considered to be a sign of authority greater than that which a bishop says. These two are given at the level of a bishop and are second hand authority of a single bishop.

I am not claiming that this definition has a greater authority on what conscience is than a bishop, all though, as noted, it was published under the authority of a bishop, and examined and ruled to contain nothing that is contrary to Church teaching.

Given that, can you offer a ruling by an equal or higher authority that states anything in opposition to that definition offered by Fr Hardon?

 

[pnewton]

Given that, can you offer a ruling by an equal or higher authority that states anything in opposition to that definition offered by Fr Hardon?

What archbishop Cupich said was equally true. I see no contradiction between the two.

 

[Brendan]

What archbishop Cupich said was equally true. I see no contradiction between the two.

I agree. My point in bringing it up was that Thomas denied that the conscience was rooted in Reason, and thus reliant on Reason as it’s active power.

He stated that is was a function of the emotive power.

I wanted to show that the Church considers it to be a function of the Intellect, not the emotive power, or even the Will.

In addition, the Hardon definition shows where the principles that Reason should consider are derived from, namely the natural moral law, and revealed moral truth.