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

[Thomas_White]

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

Just curious, but why the question?

 

[graciew]

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

What do you mean ,Jim ?

 

[JimG]

What do you mean ,Jim ?

I was pondering this phrase in your previous post: “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.”

I was thinking that it is the job of moral theology to provide a road map, and a map can be useful on occasion, as can the moral teachings in the catechism.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

No. You are still not grasping the point that God’s law is inscribed on the conscience and that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed because it is God’s law. It is a natural part of man, and man, who is made in the image of God, is God’s Creation. However, if the certain judgment of conscience should err, there is a deeper problem.

It is by not recognizing this teaching that you come to the faulty assumptions you do.

 

[Ender]

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 not clear exactly what is meant by “allowed.” If you mean a person may in good conscience reject a church doctrine with impunity, then the statement is absolutely untrue. Following our own conscience does not excuse us from responsibility for the errors the conscience makes.

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.”

Now you are asserting that no one who supports abortion does so with a certain conscience. There is no justification for such a belief, it merely belittles the people who disagree with you. Once again your belief that a certain conscience will lead all people to the same conclusion you reach is belied by the evidence. I’ve spoken with several people who are quite certain that there is nothing wrong with abortions; they are hardly sociopaths.

Look again to the last sentence of paragraph: “To act against conscience certainly does occur…”

True but irrelevant. These people are acting in accordance with their consciences.

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

That quote was hardly out of context. You assert as a statement of fact that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of church teaching. That you then proceed to try and mitigate that statement by claiming no one could act that way with a clear conscience in no way changes its meaning. There is no justification for either claim.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

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.

I find the addition of abortion odd, and probably impossible with the way Cardinal Cupich framed this issue. I do not see someone working with a priest in his formation coming away with the take the abortion is okey-dokey.

 

[Thomas_White]

I find the addition of abortion odd, and probably impossible with the way Cardinal Cupich framed this issue. I do not see someone working with a priest in his formation coming away with the take the abortion is okey-dokey.

It is perplexing. I can honestly say that at least by the age of eight if someone had asked me if abortion were bad, and explained this meant the killing of an unborn baby, I would have replied along the lines of, “Yes. Why would you ask me such a dumb question?”

 

[Ender]

No. You are still not grasping the point that God’s law is inscribed on the conscience and that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed because it is God’s law.

No, I absolutely understand your position on this. It has been my point all along that this claim is demonstrably untrue.

First, if by "God’s law’ you mean that a full understanding of the natural law and how it applies in every situation is inscribed on the conscience, then I reject this. As has been pointed out, if the conscience comes fully loaded with “God’s law”, in what sense can it become informed? The church recognizes that it does not come with such prior knowledge and insists: 1783 Conscience must be informed. Informed with what? If God’s law is already there, what can it learn? Yet the church requires us to develop it: *1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.

*Second, if certainty of judgment meant the conscience was aligned with objective truth, then all people of good will should reach the same conclusions, yet clearly that doesn’t happen. Even within the church, even among bishops, we see them reaching diametrically opposed positions. Your belief that certainty guarantees correctness is not something the church has ever taught and it leads to unresolvable situations.

If I am certain that A is right, and you are certain that not-A is right, which of us is correct? Not only can you not answer that question, for you the situation cannot even exist. Your position holds that it is impossible for the certain conscience to be mistaken so it is inherently impossible for two people to reach opposite conclusions with certainty.

However, if the certain judgment of conscience should err, there is a deeper problem.

Your belief rejects this situation as impossible, although the church, clearly, does not. 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.
Nor is it useful to distinguish between “conscience” and “certain conscience.” If God’s law is imprinted on our conscience then our conscience should always be certain, and the only distinction you can make is between following the conscience or acting against it. Yet 1786 clearly states: the conscience can err, and the certain conscience is no different.

It is by not recognizing this teaching that you come to the faulty assumptions you do.

You dispute the church by claiming the (certain) conscience cannot make an erroneous judgment. If my assumptions are faulty they are at least not so obviously contradicted.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is perplexing. I can honestly say that at least by the age of eight if someone had asked me if abortion were bad, and explained this meant the killing of an unborn baby, I would have replied along the lines of, “Yes. Why would you ask me such a dumb question?”

Suppose, however, that someone told you that an abortion was simply the removal of a lump of tissue. Do you think at the age of eight you would have reached the same conclusion? Would you have been any less certain of your choice? Here is a case where certainty can lead to opposite conclusions, despite the fact that in your model, certainty guarantees that one has made the correct judgment.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It is perplexing. I can honestly say that at least by the age of eight if someone had asked me if abortion were bad, and explained this meant the killing of an unborn baby, I would have replied along the lines of, “Yes. Why would you ask me such a dumb question?”

Just as an aside, abortion found its way to mainstream acceptance as a procedure ‘to save the mothers life’ and its that aspect that causes the difficulty with conscience. I think its easier to see that anyone supporting ‘choice’ is side stepping conscience altogether. Abortion ethics probably should be concentrated on ectpic pregnancy to help with formation of conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

Just as an aside, abortion found its way to mainstream acceptance as a procedure ‘to save the mothers life’ and its that aspect that causes the difficulty with conscience. I think its easier to see that anyone supporting ‘choice’ is side stepping conscience altogether. Abortion ethics probably should be concentrated on ectpic pregnancy to help with formation of conscience.

I know. I raised this in either this thread or another. It involves when the fetus might not survive as the result of treatment necessary to save the mother’s life. I don’t believe the Church considers it abortion.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not clear exactly what is meant by “allowed.” If you mean a person may in good conscience reject a church doctrine with impunity, then the statement is absolutely untrue. Following our own conscience does not excuse us from responsibility for the eerrors the conscience makes.

“Permitted by law.”

Now you are asserting that no one who supports abortion does so with a certain conscience. There is no justification for such a belief, it merely belittles the people who disagree with you. Once again your belief that a certain conscience will lead all people to the same conclusion you reach is belied by the evidence. I’ve spoken with several people who are quite certain that there is nothing wrong with abortions; they are hardly sociopaths.

Now I am “belittling people who disagree with me”? No one has said conscience cannot err or even that it is necessarily clearly heard or even heard at all. I do not think in contemporary society this phenomenon is at all unusual or abnormal. It would fall well short of sociopathy, which is the complete inability to distinguish right from wrong.

True but irrelevant. These people are acting in accordance with their consciences.
That quote was hardly out of context. You assert as a statement of fact that a person is allowed to have an abortion in spite of church teaching. That you then proceed to try and mitigate that statement by claiming no one could act that way with a clear conscience in no way changes its meaning. There is no justification for either claim.

To say that abortion is lawful is a plain and simple fact. To mention this fact is not to mitigate anything. It is an utterly obvious fact and at the very core of the dispute concerning abortion. The point was that a person could obtain an abortion despite Church teaching.

What then would a “clear conscience” mean with respect to abortion? Is it that abortion is not wrong? Or is that conscience has erred?

So, please tell me. Am I on trial here and are you the self-appointed prosecutor? I have tried in good faith to charitably say the teaching on conscience apparently is a bit complex. Just sayin’…

 

[Brendan]

I find the addition of abortion odd, and probably impossible with the way Cardinal Cupich framed this issue. I do not see someone working with a priest in his formation coming away with the take the abortion is okey-dokey.

As noted earlier in the conversation, since the conscience is the law of God written on the heart, no amount of formation can ever come to a certain judgement of conscience against any moral truth known to the Church.

So yes, that would include abortion, contraception or any evil act. By definition, they are contrary to the law of God, and therefore are not true judgements of conscience.

 

[graciew]

I was pondering this phrase in your previous post: “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.”

I was thinking that it is the job of moral theology to provide a road map, and a map can be useful on occasion, as can the moral teachings in the catechism.

Jim ,the " road map" is personal. I can follow Mother Teresa ,who was an angel of angels , and God may tell me " Are you ok ??? You have a husband and kids ! What are you doing with that ticket to Calcutta in your hands ?? "
That sort of thing ,Jim. Not about to steal or not to steal.
And here and now in our every day lives

 

[Thomas_White]

Suppose, however, that someone told you that an abortion was simply the removal of a lump of tissue. Do you think at the age of eight you would have reached the same conclusion? Would you have been any less certain of your choice? Here is a case where certainty can lead to opposite conclusions, despite the fact that in your model, certainty guarantees that one has made the correct judgment.

Ender

‘A lump of tissue’ could mean many things. At the age of eight, it would not have meant an unborn child to me. With all due respect, your conclusion is yet another leap of logic.

 

[Ender]

“Permitted by law.”

By what law? God’s moral law? Surely that does not permit us to sin regardless of the certainty of the conscience. Nor is there a Law of the Church that is in play here. There is only the moral law. US law? That’s not pertinent to the discussion.

Now I am “belittling people who disagree with me”?

Don’t change the nature of my comment. That was not at all what my statement meant.

No one has said conscience cannot err or even that it is necessarily clearly heard or even heard at all.

You have said the certain conscience cannot err. That this cannot be true is demonstrated by the number of people who are as convinced of the moral uprightness of their beliefs as you are of yours. The use of contraception is an obvious example.

To say that abortion is lawful is a plain and simple fact.

We have been discussing the teaching of the church and morality in light of natural law. If you are now saying that US law permits abortion, that observation is superfluous and irrelevant.

To mention this fact is not to mitigate anything. It is an utterly obvious fact and at the very core of the dispute concerning abortion. The point was that a person could obtain an abortion despite Church teaching.

What possible connection is there between what is permitted under US law and what is permitted by the moral law?

What then would a “clear conscience” mean with respect to abortion? Is it that abortion is not wrong? Or is that conscience has erred?

To me it would mean the conscience has erred. By your standard it would seem an impossibility.

Am I on trial here and are you the self-appointed prosecutor? I have tried in good faith to charitably say the teaching on conscience apparently is a bit complex. Just sayin’…

You have made assertions about the conscience with which I disagree; that’s what we have been debating. This is a debate forum so it seemed an appropriate response.

Ender

 

[Ender]

‘A lump of tissue’ could mean many things. At the age of eight, it would not have meant an unborn child to me. With all due respect, your conclusion is yet another leap of logic.

As I understand your position it is that the certain conscience cannot err because God’s law is written on our conscience from the beginning. If it is true that even an eight year old child could be sure that an abortion was wrong - believing that it was the destruction of a child - he should with equal certainty be sure that an abortion was not wrong if he believed it was nothing more than than the removal of some harmful or irrelevant piece the body, like an appendix, a tapeworm, or a cancerous growth.

The point is that certainty does not guarantee our judgments will be true.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

By what law? God’s moral law?

I had in mind a U.S. Supreme Court decision, actually. I guess it could be argued that this was not an actual law passed Congress. In that case, it could be argued I was again up to something nefarious. :bluelite:

 

[Thomas_White]

As I understand your position it is that the certain conscience cannot err because God’s law is written on our conscience from the beginning. If it is true that even an eight year old child could be sure that an abortion was wrong - believing that it was the destruction of a child - he should with equal certainty be sure that an abortion was not wrong if he believed it was nothing more than than the removal of some harmful or irrelevant piece the body, like an appendix, a tapeworm, or a cancerous growth.

The point is that certainty does not guarantee our judgments will be true.

Ender

Good point.

 

[Thomas_White]

By what law? God’s moral law? Surely that does not permit us to sin regardless of the certainty of the conscience. Nor is there a Law of the Church that is in play here. There is only the moral law. US law? That’s not pertinent to the discussion.
Don’t change the nature of my comment. That was not at all what my statement meant.
You have said the certain conscience cannot err. That this cannot be true is demonstrated by the number of people who are as convinced of the moral uprightness of their beliefs as you are of yours. The use of contraception is an obvious example.

I only corrected your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my comment. I have not said “the certain conscience cannot err” and have quoted Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on this question. This is not a debate, and I am only pointing out what has been misunderstood. You have made the reference to U.S. law, that I made for a specific reason in my original comment, pertinent.

We have been discussing the teaching of the church and morality in light of natural law. If you are now saying that US law permits abortion, that observation is superfluous and irrelevant.

What possible connection is there between what is permitted under US law and what is permitted by the moral law?

I am now saying U.S. law permits abortion? The observation that abortion is legal under U.S. Law was made in my original comment. I was not then and am not now saying this is U.S. law. It is U.S. law. This observation was not superfluous in my original comment. You are now saying the observation is superfluous in your attempt to refute that comment. You are taking quotes entirely out of context.

To me it would mean the conscience has erred. By your standard it would seem an impossibility.

You have made assertions about the conscience with which I disagree; that’s what we have been debating. This is a debate forum so it seemed an appropriate response.

How is this my standing when no one has said the conscience cannot err? I understand you have not agreed with my comments, but to be frank this is no debate. I don’t know what else to say. There is no argument presented.