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

[Brendan]

I have not said “the certain conscience cannot err” and have quoted Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on this question. .

Actually, you haven’t shown anything from Cardinal Ratzinger in regards on CERTAIN judgements of conscience.

The quote you provided me only address conscience in general.

Do you hold that ALL judgements of conscience have certitude, or only specific ones.

And if it only specific ones that have certitude, do you have a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that addresses those specific ones.

 

[Ender]

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.

Here is your comment from post #455 (emphasis in the original):God’s law is inscribed on the conscience and that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed because it is God’s law.
I think we will all agree that God never errs, so if the certain judgment of conscience is in fact the perception of God’s law, it must also be true that “the certain conscience cannot err.” This is not something that Ratzinger has ever said.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is your comment from post #455 (emphasis in the original):God’s law is inscribed on the conscience and that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed because it is God’s law.
I think we will all agree that God never errs, so if the certain judgment of conscience is in fact the perception of God’s law, it must also be true that “the certain conscience cannot err.” This is not something that Ratzinger has ever said.

Here is your post #328:

Referring again to the article on the conscience by Cardinal Ratzinger:But the fact that the conviction a person has come to certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonization of subjectivity.* 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 protest of the anamnesis 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 deaf to the internal promptings of truth.

With all due respect, there is a point where one might fairly and reasonably ask what is the real motivation for persisting in an argument?

 

[Ender]

Here is your post #328:
…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…(Ratzinger)

That it is never wrong to follow our convictions does not mean, as the cardinal points out, that the convictions themselves are not wrong. This has been my point: the certainty of our judgments does not mean they are true. Certainty is not a guarantee that our judgments are moral.

With all due respect, there is a point where one might fairly and reasonably ask what is the real motivation for argument?

My motivation for any argument is to refute a position I believe is incorrect.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

That it is never wrong to follow our convictions does not mean, as the cardinal points out, that the convictions themselves are not wrong. This has been my point: the certainty of our judgments does not mean they are true. Certainty is not a guarantee that our judgments are moral.
My motivation for any argument is to refute a position I believe is incorrect.

Ender

Thank your for the explanation. Can you not see that an “askew conviction” is a wrong conviction? This is precisely what the cardinal is saying.

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is your comment from post #455 (emphasis in the original):God’s law is inscribed on the conscience and that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed because it is God’s law.
I think we will all agree that God never errs, so if the certain judgment of conscience is in fact the perception of God’s law, it must also be true that “the certain conscience cannot err.” This is not something that Ratzinger has ever said.

Ender

That it is never wrong to follow our convictions does not mean, as the cardinal points out, that the convictions themselves are not wrong. This has been my point: the certainty of our judgments does not mean they are true. Certainty is not a guarantee that our judgments are moral.
My motivation for any argument is to refute a position I believe is incorrect.

Ender

In the first quote you say "I think we all agree that God’s law never errs, so if in fact the certain judgment of conscience is in fact the perception of God’s law, it must also be true “the certain conscience cannot err”.

In the second quote you say “That it is never wrong to follow our convictions does not mean, as the cardinal points out, that the convictions themselves are not wrong.”

“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” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).

It is the second sentence in bold font that you are not grasping.

 

[Thomas_White]

Actually, you haven’t shown anything from Cardinal Ratzinger in regards on CERTAIN judgements of conscience.

The quote you provided me only address conscience in general.

Do you hold that ALL judgements of conscience have certitude, or only specific ones.

And if it only specific ones that have certitude, do you have a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that addresses those specific ones.

What has been cited is found in the last paragraph of the section “B) Conscientia” in the article provided by the link below. This article has been cited several times in the thread. What I might hold is irrelevant, though I do not disagree with what Cardinal Ratzinger says in what is provided by the link. I have suggested that perhaps the full teaching on conscience is not fully open to an analysis of its literal words. Conscience is experienced.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

 

[Ender]

Can you not see that an “askew conviction” is a wrong conviction? This is precisely what the cardinal is saying.

Yes, of course. Our convictions - our certain judgments - can be wrong, which is why your assertion 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.
***…is also incorrect. Since our convictions can be wrong, those that are are clearly not part of God’s law. It is because it is our conviction that we must follow it, not because it is God’s law. If you recognize that convictions can be wrong you must surely recognize they do not always represent God’s law, certainty notwithstanding.

Ender

 

[Ender]

In the first quote you say "I think we all agree that God’s law never errs, so if in fact the certain judgment of conscience is in fact the perception of God’s law, it must also be true “the certain conscience cannot err”.

In the second quote you say “That it is never wrong to follow our convictions does not mean, as the cardinal points out, that the convictions themselves are not wrong.”

“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” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).

It is the second sentence in bold font that you are not grasping.

I don’t find the statement obscure; it seems pretty self explanatory. What I don’t see is how it matters regarding the validity of your assertion that the certain conscience is nothing less than an expression of God’s law. Is the distorted conscience any less sure of its judgments? Surety is no guarantor of anything, much less that it always inerrantly reflects God’s will.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, of course. Our convictions - our certain judgments - can be wrong, which is why your assertion 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.
***…is also incorrect. Since our convictions can be wrong, those that are are clearly not part of God’s law. It is because it is our conviction that we must follow it, not because it is God’s law. If you recognize that convictions can be wrong you must surely recognize they do not always represent God’s law, certainty notwithstanding.

Ender

Why must the certain judgment of conscience be obeyed?

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t find the statement obscure; it seems pretty self explanatory. What I don’t see is how it matters regarding the validity of your assertion that the certain conscience is nothing less than an expression of God’s law. Is the distorted conscience any less sure of its judgments? Surety is no guarantor of anything, much less that it always inerrantly reflects God’s will.

Ender

Why must the certain judgment of conscience be obeyed?

“But he [Aquinas] is careful to emphasize what is peculiar to this knowledge of moral actions whose conclusions do not come from mere knowing or thinking. Whether something is recognized or not, depends on the will which can block the way to recognition or lead to it. It is dependent, that is to say, on an already formed moral character which can either continue to deform or be further purified. On this level, the level of judgment (conscientia in the narrower sense), it can be said that even the erroneous conscience binds.” --Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as previously cited

When the certain voice of conscience *is/] heard, the ‘will’ can block its recognition. This results in guilt on a deeper level by stifling the protest of the anemnesis of being “which makes one deaf to the internal promptings of truth”. What is blocked by the judgment of will is God’s law inscribed on man’s heart and heard as the voice of conscience. The guilt for stiffling of this is then much deeper, “in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth”.

This occurs when the voice of the certain judgment of conscience is ‘stiffled’ by the judgment of the will.*

 

[Rau]

I know. I raised this in either this thread or another. It [ectopic pregnancy] 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.

That depends what you mean by “treatment”. The Church considers an act directed at killing the child - so that through the death of the child, the mother’s situation is ‘normalised’ - to be an abortion.

An act not so directed, but which unavoidably leads to the death of the child, is not an abortion.

There are medical options that fit into each of these cases.

 

[Ender]

Why must the certain judgment of conscience be obeyed?

Because it is what we believe is right, and doing what we believe is wrong is in fact a sin (regardless of the accuracy of the belief). But the fact that I believe something is right doesn’t actually make it right. The conscience makes judgments; it does not have direct contact with truth.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Because it is what we believe is right, and doing what we believe is wrong is in fact a sin (regardless of the accuracy of the belief). But the fact that I believe something is right doesn’t actually make it right. The conscience makes judgments; it does not have direct contact with truth.

Ender

Then we disagree. Is doing what we believe is right make it not a sin? As has been provided, I do not believe this is the correct understanding of the teaching concerning conscience.

I think what Cardinal Ratzinger meant concerning why the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even if the act turns out for ill is that the voice of the conscience is in such an instance heard but ‘stiffled’ by the will (and not the conscience). What is important to realize is that the person then acts contrary to the certain judgment of his conscience, and this is not to obey its certain judgment. There could be many causes for this incorrect judgment of the will, I think, including Original Sin.

 

[Rau]

. [Does] doing what we believe is right make it not a sin? As has been provided, I do not believe this is the correct understanding of the teaching concerning conscience.

If the only facts on the table are these, then there is no sin - no culpability. One cannot become culpable, deserving of punishment, by accident or in ignorance.

Are you proposing that we always “just know” what is right, and con ourselves when we believe our conscience tells us something different?

 

[Thomas_White]

If the only facts on the table are these, then there is no sin - no culpability. One cannot become culpable, deserving of punishment, by accident or in ignorance.

Are you proposing that we always “just know” what is right, and con ourselves when we believe our conscience tells us something different?

No. I am not proposing anything.

 

[Rau]

No. I am not proposing anything.

It’s a lengthy thread for you to now retract all!

 

[Thomas_White]

If the only facts on the table are these, then there is no sin - no culpability. One cannot become culpable, deserving of punishment, by accident or in ignorance.

The actual question was “is doing what we believe is right mean there is no sin?” No. It does not. There is then guilt at a deeper level. This is the point of then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation of why a person must follow the certain judgment of conscience.

Are you proposing that we always “just know” what is right, and con ourselves when we believe our conscience tells us something different?

No, and I am not inclined to again try to explain what seems a difficult teaching on conscience. It is already in comments in the thread. I suggest you read the section on conscience in the CCC and the article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, for which links are provided in the thread.

 

[Rau]

The actual question was “is doing what we believe is right mean there is no sin?” No. It does not. There is then guilt at a deeper level. This is the point of then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation of why a person must follow the certain judgment of conscience.

You appear to deny that the certain judgement of conscience can match what a person believes is right, in the event they are in fact wrong. Thus, you assert that in doing wrong (despite belief to the contrary) the person has wilfully corrupted the advice of one’s conscience.

Please explain what guilt attaches to a person doing what they earnestly believe to be right. Is there a culpability attached to a wrong act if the actor believes the act is good?

 

[Thomas_White]

You appear to deny that the certain judgement of conscience can match what a person believes is right, in the event they are in fact wrong. Thus, you assert that in doing wrong (despite belief to the contrary) the person has wilfully corrupted the advice of one’s conscience.

Please explain what guilt attaches to a person doing what they earnestly believe to be right. Is there a culpability attached to a wrong act if the actor believes the act is good?

Please explain? The question is not framed properly. Please read the article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger provided by the link in the thread. This is explained in the last paragraph of Section B, I believe. Please also consult the teaching on conscience in the CCC. I would suggest you could then provide your own understanding of the teaching in a comment. As previously noted, I am not willing to again provide my understanding of it. And that is pretty much it. What has been said was relative to the OP.