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

[Ender]

How could providing verbatim CCC 1776 be construed to mean I am interpreting what it says?

We are both trying to understand what it means, but your understanding of its content is different than mine. I’m certain I’m right; you are certain you’re right. It would appear that certainty does not guarantee correctness since one of us is surely wrong.

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.

As was said before, “it is the natural law, not the conscience, that discloses the objective and universal demands of the moral good.” The conscience applies the demands of the natural law to a specific situation. It is the natural law, not the conscience, that supplies the criteria of good and evil.

Ender

 

[clem456]

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.

You did interpret, and represented your opinion as fact.

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13390284&postcount=391
This is not a “verbatim quote”, it’s a “cherry-pick” mixed with an erroneous opinion. AKA half-truth.

No problem. We all have an opinion.

 

[Ender]

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 have no doubt that this is the way the report is being presented this way, and I strongly suspect that it is not because the report actually contains that position, but because that is the position supported by the publishers, and - sadly - the report is vaguely enough composed to support several interpretations, including contradictory ones.

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.

If you haven’t read the report you shouldn’t assume much of anything, especially that there is such a thing as an obvious result.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Luke 2:19

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

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.

Excellent observation. There is the attempt, perhaps not consciously, to assert that Reason is the Providence of Man. :takeoff:

 

[clem456]

Excellent observation. There is the attempt, perhaps not consciously, to assert that Reason is the Providence of Man. :takeoff:

It helps to quote the assertion you are referring to and directly address it.

There is plenty of fodder for you over the 50+ pages.

 

[Thomas_White]

It helps to quote the assertion you are referring to and directly address it.

There is plenty of fodder for you over the 50+ pages.

I guess so.

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.

 

[graciew]

This is from Mary:the Church at the source by Cardinal Ratzinger and Von Balthasar.
Reflections on Luke 2:19 .
Found it interesting talking about Mary pondering in her heart.

…There it is said that Mary "kept’, “held together”, and “placed together” all these words (=happenings) “in her heart”. The Evangelist here ascribes to Mary the insightful, meditative remembrance that in the Gospel of John will play such an important role in the unfolding of the message of Jesus in the Church under the working of the Spirit. Mary sees the events as “words”, as happenings full of meaning because they come from God’s meaning-creating will. She translates the events into words and penetrates them, bringing them into her “heart” – into that interior dimension of understanding where sense and spirit, reason and feeling, interior and exterior perception interpenetrate circumincessively. She is thus able to see the totality without getting lost in individual details and to understand the points of the whole. Mary "puts together “holds together” – she fits the single details into the whole picture, compares and considers them, and then preserves them. The word becomes seed in good soil. She does not snatch at it, hold it locked in an immediate, superficial grasp, and then forget it. Rather the outward event finds in her heart space to abide and, in this way, gradually to unveil its depth, without any blurring of its once-only contours.

There is an analogous statement in connection with the scene centering on the 12 yr. old Jesus in the Temple. The first stage is “they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them” (Lk 2:50) Even for the believing man who is entirely open to God, the words of God are not comprehensible and evident right away. Those who demand that the Christian message be as immediately understandable as any banal statement hinder God. When there is no humility to accept the mystery, no patience to receive interiorly what one has not yet understood, to carry it to term, and to let it open at its own pace, the seed of the word has fallen on rocky ground; it has found no soil. Even the Mother of God does not understand the Son at this moment, but once again she “kept all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51). The Greek term for “keep” here is not precisely the same as the one Luke uses after the scene with the shepherds. Whereas the latter emphasizes more the aspect of “together”, of unifying, contemplation, the former stresses the element of “through” of carrying the word to term and holding it fast…

 

[JimG]

This is from Mary:the Church at the source by Cardinal Ratzinger and Von Balthasar.
Reflections on Luke 2:19 .
Found it interesting talking about Mary pondering in her heart.

…There it is said that Mary "kept’, “held together”, and “placed together” all these words (=happenings) “in her heart”. The Evangelist here ascribes to Mary the insightful, meditative remembrance that in the Gospel of John will play such an important role in the unfolding of the message of Jesus in the Church under the working of the Spirit. Mary sees the events as “words”, as happenings full of meaning because they come from God’s meaning-creating will. She translates the events into words and penetrates them, bringing them into her “heart” – into that interior dimension of understanding where sense and spirit, reason and feeling, interior and exterior perception interpenetrate circumincessively. She is thus able to see the totality without getting lost in individual details and to understand the points of the whole. Mary "puts together “holds together” – she fits the single details into the whole picture, compares and considers them, and then preserves them. The word becomes seed in good soil. She does not snatch at it, hold it locked in an immediate, superficial grasp, and then forget it. Rather the outward event finds in her heart space to abide and, in this way, gradually to unveil its depth, without any blurring of its once-only contours.

There is an analogous statement in connection with the scene centering on the 12 yr. old Jesus in the Temple. The first stage is “they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them” (Lk 2:50) Even for the believing man who is entirely open to God, the words of God are not comprehensible and evident right away. Those who demand that the Christian message be as immediately understandable as any banal statement hinder God. When there is no humility to accept the mystery, no patience to receive interiorly what one has not yet understood, to carry it to term, and to let it open at its own pace, the seed of the word has fallen on rocky ground; it has found no soil. Even the Mother of God does not understand the Son at this moment, but once again she “kept all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51). The Greek term for “keep” here is not precisely the same as the one Luke uses after the scene with the shepherds. Whereas the latter emphasizes more the aspect of “together”, of unifying, contemplation, the former stresses the element of “through” of carrying the word to term and holding it fast…

Of course there is mystery in Christianity, and no human being can perfectly understand everything. Still, Jesus words about marriage were no mystery. They are pretty clear. And so has been the consistent teaching of the Church to whom He handed down the teaching.

 

[graciew]

Of course there is mystery in Christianity, and no human being can perfectly understand everything. Still, Jesus words about marriage were no mystery. They are pretty clear. And so has been the consistent teaching of the Church to whom He handed down the teaching.

And it will be respected ,the Pope said it.

I do not see the Archb. doing anything else than John 1:35-39.
 Jesus did.not give them His " address" and turned away.

“What do you want ?”
Where do you live ? Come and see.
And they talked…

Jesus went past,
36 and John looked towards him and said, ‘Look, there is the lamb of God.’
37 And the two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned round, saw them following and said, ‘What do you want?’ They answered, ‘Rabbi’ – which means Teacher – ‘where do you live?’
39 He replied, ‘Come and see’; so they went and saw where he lived, and stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.

 

[graciew]

Of course there is mystery in Christianity, and no human being can perfectly understand everything. Still, Jesus words about marriage were no mystery. They are pretty clear. And so has been the consistent teaching of the Church to whom He handed down the teaching.

And it will be respected ,the Pope said it.

I do not see the Archb. doing anything else than John 1:35-39.
 Jesus did.not give them His " address" and turned away.

“What do you want ?”
Where do you live ? “Come and see.”
And they talked…we do not know what about ,but they came out saying He was the Messiah and they followed him in a different way than they had " followed" at the beginning.

Jesus went past,
36 and John looked towards him and said, ‘Look, there is the lamb of God.’
37 And the two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned round, saw them following and said, ‘What do you want?’ They answered, ‘Rabbi’ – which means Teacher – ‘where do you live?’
39 He replied, ‘Come and see’; so they went and saw where he lived, and stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.

 

[pnewton]

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

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.

I find such political opinions miss what the Catholic Church is. No, Pope Francis will have no problem presenting the results. There is not going to be any big split over this and the Church is not going to “disintegrate.” Why would anyone care that Pat Buchanan is sending out this dire prediction?

 

[pnewton]

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.

My reservation to this, while it is true, it is ideal, and therefore meaningless to everyone except Jesus and Mary, who were the only two with a perfectly formed conscience. If the Catholic teaching on conscience applied only when a properly formed conscience was a perfectly formed conscience, then it is the most useless thing ever put into print. Such strict application is just an endless circle of begging the question of what is truth. I note it is always easier to point to someone else’s ill-formed conscience than it is our own. After all, if we knew the flaws in our own conscience, then the knowing something was wrong would contradict that we though it was right. This is why we need to follow our own conscience, and its formation, and stop obsessing with the conscience of our neighbor.

There is no such thing as emotional knowing.

I know it is a bad term, but both experience and Scripture tells me something like this exists. Maybe I cannot communicate it well. It is like art, you get it or you don’t. If you do not agree, either I failed to properly communicate this thought, or we simply disagree. I know what I know that I know I know. I am terrible at epistemology.

 

[Ender]

My reservation to this, while it is true, it is ideal, and therefore meaningless to everyone except Jesus and Mary, who were the only two with a perfectly formed conscience. If the Catholic teaching on conscience applied only when a properly formed conscience was a perfectly formed conscience, then it is the most useless thing ever put into print.

Thomas White has said that if the judgment of a certain conscience conflicts with a church teaching (e.g. abortion) we are to follow our conscience. Suppose we do that. Suppose further that the church’s position is correct: should our action be considered a sin, and will we be held accountable for it just like all the other sins we commit?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White has said that if the judgment of a certain conscience conflicts with a church teaching (e.g. abortion) we are to follow our conscience. Suppose we do that. Suppose further that the church’s position is correct: should our action be considered a sin, and will we be held accountable for it just like all the other sins we commit?

Ender

No, Ender, I have not said that. If you are to construe what I have said to mean something other than what was said, please first quote the comment. With charity: what has been said was either not so clear or was misunderstood. What I believe is that the certain judgment of conscience that has heard the voice of God’s law could not possibly conclude that abortion is permissible. It is to know right from wrong.

 

[Ender]

No, Ender, I have not said that. If you are to construe what I have said to mean something other than what was said, please first quote the comment. With charity: what has been said was either not so clear or was misunderstood. What I believe is that the certain judgment of conscience that has heard the voice of God’s law could not possibly conclude that abortion is permissible. It is to know right from wrong.

Did you not say that if the certain judgment of conscience conflicted with church teaching we should follow our conscience over that teaching? Is it just the example I cited that you feel was misunderstood or the principle behind it?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Did you not say that if the certain judgment of conscience conflicted with church teaching we should follow our conscience over that teaching? Is it just the example I cited that you feel was misunderstood or the principle behind it?

Ender

What I think I did was quote Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. In any case, the Cardinal’s teaching is what provided the basis of my comment. This teaching is in the CCC as well. What really should be understood is that I am only attempting to provide Church teaching as I understand it and would readily admit this can err–but not likely to the extent you have asserted.

 

[Ender]

No, Ender, I have not said that. If you are to construe what I have said to mean something other than what was said, please first quote the comment.

I would have cited your comment but I didn’t want to have to dig back through the entire thread. Since you challenged me on this point, however, I made the effort. It appears my memory is better than yours in this case. Here is your statement from post #170.It is safe to say that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law and the important factor of conscience cannot be known with respect to a given person, i.e., how such a person truly feels about having an abortion. To act against conscience certainly does occur, and I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.

What I believe is that the certain judgment of conscience that has heard the voice of God’s law could not possibly conclude that abortion is permissible. It is to know right from wrong.

The problem with this position is this: how can you know right from wrong if all you have to go by is your own judgment? Is it not clear that there are people who are just as certain that abortions are justifiable as you are that they are not? It is no argument to claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You are stuck on the belief that a certain conscience always concludes what is objectively true. This is clearly not the case and it leaves you with no response to that person whose conscientious conclusions differ from yours. Your assertion that abortion is never permissible carries no more weight than another’s assertion that it is. You have reduced morality to your own personal judgments. If you’re going to do that you cannot reject someone else’s right to do exactly the same thing: reduce morality to his own personal judgment.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I would have cited your comment but I didn’t want to have to dig back through the entire thread. Since you challenged me on this point, however, I made the effort. It appears my memory is better than yours in this case. Here is your statement from post #170.It is safe to say that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law and the important factor of conscience cannot be known with respect to a given person, i.e., how such a person truly feels about having an abortion. To act against conscience certainly does occur, and I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.
The problem with this position is this: how can you know right from wrong if all you have to go by is your own judgment? Is it not clear that there are people who are just as certain that abortions are justifiable as you are that they are not? It is no argument to claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You are stuck on the belief that a certain conscience always concludes what is objectively true. This is clearly not the case and it leaves you with no response to that person whose conscientious conclusions differ from yours. Your assertion that abortion is never permissible carries no more weight than another’s assertion that it is. You have reduced morality to your own personal judgments. If you’re going to do that you cannot reject someone else’s right to do exactly the same thing: reduce morality to his own personal judgment.

Ender

It is safe to say that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law and the important factor of conscience cannot be known with respect to a given person, i.e., how such a person truly feels about having an abortion. To act against conscience certainly does occur, and I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.

I see. The comment is misunderstood. The first sentence of the comment is a statement of fact: “…a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law…” Is this not a true statement? It is the beginning of an argument disputing something that was said in the discussion.

The last sentence is what is important: “…I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.” This was in the context of the general discussion on conscience where it had been said many or most who participate in abortions do not think it is wrong. It was in this context that the last sentence of my comment should be understood. Here is its meaning: “Why is it thought that a person would not know abortion is wrong? Does not one’s conscience play a role? Would there not later be feelings of guilt? It is known that feelings of guilt often later occur.” This also concerned comments about Pope Francis’s recent approach to forgiving those women who have had abortions. Look again to the last sentence of paragraph: “To act against conscience certainly does occur…”

This is the problem of taking quotes out of their context and constructing an argument in reply.

 

[graciew]

I would have cited your comment but I didn’t want to have to dig back through the entire thread. Since you challenged me on this point, however, I made the effort. It appears my memory is better than yours in this case. Here is your statement from post #170.It is safe to say that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of Church teaching. This is permitted by law and the important factor of conscience cannot be known with respect to a given person, i.e., how such a person truly feels about having an abortion. To act against conscience certainly does occur, and I would suggest that only a sociopath would not have a sense of right and wrong in the instance of abortion.
The problem with this position is this: how can you know right from wrong if all you have to go by is your own judgment? Is it not clear that there are people who are just as certain that abortions are justifiable as you are that they are not? It is no argument to claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You are stuck on the belief that a certain conscience always concludes what is objectively true. This is clearly not the case and it leaves you with no response to that person whose conscientious conclusions differ from yours. Your assertion that abortion is never permissible carries no more weight than another’s assertion that it is. You have reduced morality to your own personal judgments. If you’re going to do that you cannot reject someone else’s right to do exactly the same thing: reduce morality to his own personal judgment.

Ender

There is something here. We do not discern right from.wrong in a given situation but the greater good. Evil is out of the equation.
How does one allign one,s will to God 's will. ? That amazing unity inside …and outside… We do not have a detailed scheduled road map. It is a struggle. We pray and think and ask and talk , and at some point we make a decision.
And I remember that when I was like " So what do I do now ?" ,my priest with his enormous love and patience shared this during one of our talks as a suggestion from his own experience " Be still". And I obeyed.

 

[JimG]

So shall we fire all the moral theologians as unnecessary? And delete those portions of the catechism which relate to moral teachings?