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

[Thomas_White]

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?

“The affective domain represents one of the three divisions described in modern psychology: the cognitive, the conative, and the affective”. Affect is a key part of the process of a person’s interaction with stimuli…

“Affective states are psycho-physiological constructs.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_%28psychology%29

Suppose a person is presented a choice where he can either do or not do a certain act. This choice is the stimuli. The awareness of what would be a good act or an evil act originates in the affective domain [the voice of God’s law]. The person must choose. By listening to the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience, he ‘hears’ what is the right thing to do. What he will then do is the judgment of reason and is of the cognative domain. It is a judgment made in accordance with what is affective [the voice of God’s law]. What the person does or does not do is the act [a response to the stimuli].

The choice the person must make presents the stimuli. The act is a response to the stimuli. Whether the choice would be a good choice or an evil one is brought to awareness [the cognative domain] by the affective domain [the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience]. As CCC 1776 provides, this is of the ‘heart’. It could be described as a feeling or emotion.

This is the internal forum.

 

[clem456]

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

Great.

So the problem becomes, as this thread goes on and on, the statements of the AB and the teaching of the Church are abused by individuals for the promotion of their own point of view (not you).
Maybe if we could simply let the CCC and canon law and the living Magisterium speak for itself without twisted interpretations the thread could thump to an end.
Please God.
of course unsubscribe is prolly the best option

 

[pnewton]

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.

This is too metaphysical for my head. Perhaps we are talking about two things. The formation of the conscience, which seems to be the emphasis of Fr. Hardon, does rely on the intellect. How can we bring teaching into a decision if we have not been taught? More that just knowing, believing requires a type of knowledge that goes beyond a simple catechesis of facts, and relies on the application of reason.

On the other hand, the “output,” if you will, sure seems emotive. We talk about what our gut tells us, at least in English and Scripture speaks of desires of the heart. As much as I favor the intellectual side, I have to say that the emotional “knowing” seems to be final result of training and reason.

 

[Ender]

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?

No. Where does the report say this? Here is one translation of the relevant passages.

That these issues must be settle by the “internal forum” on a case-by-case basis?

No. Provide a citation.

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.

The problem with the report (assuming the cited translation is accurate) is precisely this: it allows bishops to decide how they want to interpret it. It reaches no specific conclusions, issues no concrete directions. It is full of generalities and vagueness, and it will undoubtedly lead to Bishop A taking one approach and Bishop B taking its opposite.

That is what I predict, and if it happens it will contribute to the continuing decline of the church as even her bishops demonstrate that her doctrines can be shaped to mean whatever one wants them to mean.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Great.

So the problem becomes, as this thread goes on and on, the statements of the AB and the teaching of the Church are abused by individuals for the promotion of their own point of view (not you).
Maybe if we could simply let the CCC and canon law and the living Magisterium speak for itself without twisted interpretations the thread could thump to an end.
Please God.
of course unsubscribe is prolly the best option

To whatever extent the statement is directed toward my comments, I would suggest that the CCC and the Magisterium speak very well for themselves. The difficulty is in understanding. There is a difference between the internal and the external forums.

To imply that what has been said is to abuse the statements of the AB and the teachings of the Church for the promotion of their own point of view is hardly a charitable comment. In part, I have intentionally persisted in this thread to let this attitude reveal itself. The motivation for doing so is charitable.

 

[clem456]

To whatever extent the statement is directed toward my comments, I would suggest that the CCC and the Magisterium speak very well for themselves. The difficulty is in understanding. There is a difference between the internal and the external forums.

To imply that what has been said is to abuse the statements of the AB and the teachings of the Church for the promotion of their own point of view is hardly a charitable comment. In part, I have intentionally persisted in this thread to let this attitude reveal itself. The motivation for doing so is charitable.

Please go back and review your posts.
You are conflating the teaching of the Church with your own opinion and agenda, while presenting it as settled matter. Your opinion is not Church doctrine,. When the discrepancies are pointed out you do not address them in good faith.
Charity requires good faith discussion.

 

[Ender]

The awareness of what would be a good act or an evil act originates in the affective domain [the voice of God’s law]. The person must choose. By listening to the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience, he ‘hears’ what is the right thing to do. What he will then do is the judgment of reason and is of the cognative domain. It is a judgment made in accordance with what is affective [the voice of God’s law]. What the person does or does not do is the act [a response to the stimuli].

This is where we differ. You believe God’s law is perfectly inscribed on everyone’s conscience, and all one has to do is truly listen to his conscience and he will know the right thing to do in every situation. I reject this. What is inscribed are not the details of the law but a sense of right and wrong that allows the law to be learned and accepted. We are in a general sense naturally aware of some laws (don’t steal, don’t kill), but the proper application of these laws is not obvious and is not something we all agree on even now with the doctrines of the church to fall back on.

It is not true that one can hear the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience. It is the natural law, not the conscience, that discloses the objective and universal demands of the moral good. Conscience is the application of the law to a specific case.
*The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law. *(Veritatis Splendor #60)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

This is where we differ. You believe God’s law is perfectly inscribed on everyone’s conscience, and all one has to do is truly listen to his conscience and he will know the right thing to do in every situation. I reject this.

It is not true that one can hear the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience.

[emphasis added]

“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” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776).

One should understand with whom it is they disagree.

 

[DaveBj]

Provided without comment: Pat Buchanan’s commentary on the subject.

theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/

Last few grafs:

How the Catholic Church can avoid greater confusion among the faithful—after the pope’s virtual blessing of the Kasper recommendations, and the synod’s rejection of them—escapes me. What does the pope do now?

If he ignores the synod’s dissent and moves the Church toward the Kasper position, he could cause a traditionalist break, a schism. Third World bishops might well refuse to change. If he does nothing, he will disappoint Western bishops, priests, and secularists who have seen in his papacy hope for an historic change in Catholic teaching and practice. If he permits the bishops to follow their consciences in their dioceses, he will advance the disintegration of the Church.

The inevitable result of any of these courses that the pope chooses will be, it seems, to deepen the confusion of the faithful.

As for Pope Francis himself, he, too, must choose. He can emulate Cardinal Wolsey—or Thomas More.

 

[Brendan]

This is too metaphysical for my head. Perhaps we are talking about two things. The formation of the conscience, which seems to be the emphasis of Fr. Hardon, does rely on the intellect. How can we bring teaching into a decision if we have not been taught? More that just knowing, believing requires a type of knowledge that goes beyond a simple catechesis of facts, and relies on the application of reason.

Conscience does not bring teaching, but is an application of teaching. I discussed that a bit earlier in the thread in regards to the distinction between a judgement of conscience, and certain judgement of conscience.

The conscience relies on the application of knowledge. For a judgment of knowledge to be certain ( and thus one that needs to be followed), the knowledge itself must be certain, in must come from an infallible source.

This came up in regards to Thomas and I discussing if a well formed decision of conscience can ever come to a conclusion that is in opposition to the Church in a matter of doctrine or morals.

I claim that it cannot, in that one of the sources of knowledge available to the conscience is the natural moral law written in the heart. That moral law cannot contradict the moral law revealed to the Church by God. They are one and the same law.

Likewise with the revealed truths. The source of the knowledge of the revealed truths is the Church, in Ordinary and Extraordinary infallible Magisterium. Therefore the revealed truths have infallible certitude.

Judgments of conscience that are in opposition to those truths cannot be said to be certain judgments, and therefore there is no obligation for a person to follow them.

On the other hand, the “output,” if you will, sure seems emotive. We talk about what our gut tells us, at least in English and Scripture speaks of desires of the heart. As much as I favor the intellectual side, I have to say that the emotional “knowing” seems to be final result of training and reason.

There is no such thing as emotional knowing. Knowledge can bring about emotions, or one can have knowledge of emotions, but it is not the same thing. The cause is not the effect.

The ‘output’ of the conscience is a decision on the morality of an act. That decision can result in happiness, sadness, guilt, whatever. But the decision, by definition is an act of the intellect.

As far as desires, that is another faculty of the soul, the Will. That too is separate from the emotions.

If one desires an act, that does not actually affect the morality of the act. Desire does not make an immoral act moral, for example. Which is why both Aquinas and Hardon specifically exclude the Will from the conscience.

Does that make sense?

 

[Brendan]

[emphasis added]

One should understand with whom it is they disagree.

Actually, Ender’s statement is factually correct. The Law is not inscribed on the conscience itself, rather, the conscience is the means by which we can hear the law so inscribed.

That is what your quote attests to.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is too metaphysical for my head. Perhaps we are talking about two things. The formation of the conscience, which seems to be the emphasis of Fr. Hardon, does rely on the intellect. How can we bring teaching into a decision if we have not been taught? More that just knowing, believing requires a type of knowledge that goes beyond a simple catechesis of facts, and relies on the application of reason.

On the other hand, the “output,” if you will, sure seems emotive. We talk about what our gut tells us, at least in English and Scripture speaks of desires of the heart. As much as I favor the intellectual side, I have to say that the emotional “knowing” seems to be final result of training and reason.

I believe what is essential is that the internal forum and the external forum are two separate forums. That this is so is Church teaching, as specifically recognized by Canon 130 of the 1983 code of Canon Law. It is when this difference is not recognized that there is difficulty.

In the internal forum, any external influence is by definition not what is decisive. This is the forum of conscience, and God’s voice is what is Important in the certain judgment of conscience. This is not meant to reject, ignore or refute Church teaching in any way, and this is apparently difficult for some to accept, realize, or perhaps grasp. But an external source is not what is the determining factor in the internal forum. When it is supposed that an external source must be determinative in the separate internal forum is when confusion is introduced.

The external forum is the authoritative domain of the Church and its doctrine and teaching. It is a separate domain. The internal forum cannot be properly recognized by the Church if the certain judgment of conscience is in contradiction to Church teaching unless an exception is recognized by the Church. The Church is authoritative in this domain.

The Church, however, does recognize the validity of the internal forum and teaches that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed. This judgment is internal and so is the prescriptive categorical imperative to obey it. Nevertheless, the person must still obey Church teaching in the external forum. The is perhaps what is most difficult to grasp: that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed is internal. Though the internal forum might with certainty judge that a person could properly receive communion, it does not mean he is necessarily permitted to do so by the Church in the separate external forum. It is important to realize this is now and always has been occurring. It is simply the reality: Individuals can and will hear the voice of conscience.

It becomes a bit difficult to understand what the fuss is about, but it is very relevant to the OP and extends way beyond this forum. What is unfortunate is when this becomes divisive, and in that respect there seems little sense here in continuing to dispute propositions derived from faulty presumptions concerning the internal forum.

However, what the Church now does concerning the recommendations of the synod concerning the divorced and remarried is far from insignifant if an exception is recognized. It is again noted that this is not a personal concern. There is no agenda either. Any decision is for the pope to make.

 

[graciew]

[emphasis added]

“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” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776).

One should understand with whom it is they disagree.

Luke 2:19

" And Mary kept all these things,reflecting on them in her heart"

 

[Brendan]

"The person must choose. By listening to the voice of God’s law inscribed on his conscience, he ‘hears’ what is the right thing to do. What he will then do is the judgment of reason and is of the cognative domain. It is a judgment made in accordance with what is affective [the voice of God’s law].

The judgment itself is an act. It is something done by the person. Specifically, It begins with the recognition of the moral problem, it then engages the knowledge present (including the natural moral law). The intellect then renders a decision on the moral correctness of the problem presented.

All of those are acts of the Intellect, specifically Reason.

 

[Ender]

For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God" (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776).

The point here is you interpret “a law” to mean the entirety of God’s moral law, but JPII stated that the conscience is not the law, that it “*bears witness to the authority of the natural law.” *Conscience is the application of the law to a specific case; it is not itself the law.

One should understand with whom it is they disagree.

You is the whom with which I disagree.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Provided without comment: Pat Buchanan’s commentary on the subject…
If [the Pope] ignores the synod’s dissent and moves the Church toward the Kasper position, he could cause a traditionalist break, a schism. Third World bishops might well refuse to change. If he does nothing, he will disappoint Western bishops, priests, and secularists who have seen in his papacy hope for an historic change in Catholic teaching and practice. If he permits the bishops to follow their consciences in their dioceses, he will advance the disintegration of the Church.

I think Buchanan’s analysis is right on, and my personal sense is that the third option will prevail… and will in all likelihood have the result he predicts.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

The point here is you interpret “a law” to mean the entirety of God’s moral law, but JPII stated that the conscience is not the law, that it “*bears witness to the authority of the natural law.” *Conscience is the application of the law to a specific case; it is not itself the law.
You is the whom with which I disagree.

Ender

How could providing verbatim CCC 1776 be construed to mean I am interpreting what it says? That conscience “bears witness to the authority of natural law” is not disputed. This is to ‘bear witness’ to the voice heard–to hear it.

 

[Ender]

The Church, however, does recognize the validity of the internal forum and teaches that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed.

Cardinal Kasper is certain his understanding is right. Cardinal Burke is certain his understanding is right. They are equally certain in what their consciences are telling them to do, yet their positions cannot both be true. One or the other of them must be wrong, but your understanding of the “certain judgment of conscience” does not allow for that possibility. How do you resolve the dilemma?

Ender

 

[TMC]

No. Where does the report say this? Here is one translation of the relevant passages.
No. Provide a citation.
The problem with the report (assuming the cited translation is accurate) is precisely this: it allows bishops to decide how they want to interpret it. It reaches no specific conclusions, issues no concrete directions. It is full of generalities and vagueness, and it will undoubtedly lead to Bishop A taking one approach and Bishop B taking its opposite.

That is what I predict, and if it happens it will contribute to the continuing decline of the church as even her bishops demonstrate that her doctrines can be shaped to mean whatever one wants them to mean.

Ender

I can’t speak to the accuracy of that translation, or to whether it contains all of the relevant portions. What I know is that it has been widely reported that the report cites the “internal forum” language coming from the German language group – a group that contained the current head of the CDF. Maybe those reports are wrong. I suppose we will need to wait for the official translation (assuming there is one).

I agree that the report allows some variation in application. I assume that was intended, so presumably the 2/3 of synod fathers that voted for those provisions are also accepting the obvious results.

 

[graciew]

The judgment itself is an act. It is something done by the person. Specifically, It begins with the recognition of the moral problem, it then engages the knowledge present (including the natural moral law). The intellect then renders a decision on the moral correctness of the problem presented.

All of those are acts of the Intellect, specifically Reason.

This may have nothing to do,but it came to mind that Peter got down of the boat and walked on water (Matthew 14:29-30)

I m really not thinking of the topic of the thread itself,just thinking of that what sounds reasonable. Rational alone seems not to work here…or worse,he sank…on second thoughts,he could walk when he " didn’t t think".

Not advocating irresponsibility here.