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

[Rau]

Please explain? The question is not framed properly.

. Really? It seems quite clear to me.

 

[Thomas_White]

. Really? It seems quite clear to me.

See the quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger in comments #473 and 481 above. This provides the explanation. If it cannot be understood, I have nothing further to say.

 

[Rau]

It’s a circular argument. If your conscience leads to believe something against Church doctrine, it is wrong.

Not that it is wrong, but that it is not your conscience that speaks. That is the circularity!

 

[Rau]

An example would be the argument that the Church permits capital punishment. A person’s certain conscience might reveal to him that it would be wrong for him to participate in a particular execution.

The Church does not teach that every instance of capital punishment is a moral act. So here, there is no conflict, no reason for a person to follow their conscience. [Not that there is any positive obligation to participate in such an act anyway.]

 

[Rau]

Using this scene from Huck Finn is brilliant! Huck, quite obviously, did the right thing even though it went against what he was taught both secular wise and in his church. Life is full of situations where we must listen to our consciences even though it will, in some cases, go against what the Church teaches. In my case, my conscience, formed over 62 years of prayer and experiences tells me that the way the Church views LGBTQ individuals is not my own view.

I believe your objection more particularly is with the teaching that there is moral wrong in same sex sexual relations. As to “how the church views LGBTQ individuals” - I don’t believe the Church views them dimly in the least.

 

[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.

Doing what we believe is right does not prevent us from sinning (which is where I disagree with you). We may surely sin even if we do what we absolutely believe is right and just. Doing what we believe is wrong, however, does make the action a sin regardless of whether or not it is actually sinful.

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).

It may well be stifled, but it is still certain. Take kozlosap’s comment that he disagrees with the church’s position on homosexuality (LGBTQ). Assume he is certain he is right. You have no basis on which to claim his will has overruled his conscience; you don’t even have a basis for asserting he is wrong since it appears that for you the conscience overrules the church.

We have no way to judge another’s certainty; we can only say our certainty has led us to a different position. If certainty is the only standard of right and wrong, then essentially there is no objective standard, only a multitude of subjective ones.

Ender

 

[PaulinVA]

Not that it is wrong, but that it is not your conscience that speaks. That is the circularity!

Huh? What is speaking, then?

 

[Thomas_White]

Doing what we believe is right does not prevent us from sinning (which is where I disagree with you). We may surely sin even if we do what we absolutely believe is right and just. Doing what we believe is wrong, however, does make the action a sin regardless of whether or not it is actually sinful.

It has been said more than once that a person can sin even when following the certain judgment of conscience. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger explains in a quote above, and it concerns anemnesis. Doing what we “believe” is wrong is not to obey or disobey the certain judgment of conscience.

It may well be stifled, but it is still certain. Take kozlosap’s comment that he disagrees with the church’s position on homosexuality (LGBTQ). Assume he is certain he is right. You have no basis on which to claim his will has overruled his conscience; you don’t even have a basis for asserting he is wrong since it appears that for you the conscience overrules the church.

Well, I never said I do and don’t believe it either and will note in this respect that this is a classic straw-man arguments. How would the voice of conscience that is stiffled be certain in a person’s awareness? I have no idea what another person might believe with respect to a certain judgment of conscience (not that it would properly be belief). But it very clearly has been said (by quoting Cardinal Ratzinger) that the certain judgment of conscience does not preclude acting in contradiction to it.

We have no way to judge another’s certainty; we can only say our certainty has led us to a different position. If certainty is the only standard of right and wrong, then essentially there is no objective standard, only a multitude of subjective ones.

It is true we have no way to judge another’s certainty, though it is a common enough practice. To question whether this “certainly” is a standard of right and wrong, when certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience and results in the certain judgment of conscience, is to question whether God’s law could be the standard of right and wrong. This is what is not understood. And it is not moral relativism.

But all of this has already been said several times. Neverthess, I believe your disagreement is meant in good faith.

 

[Rau]

Huh? What is speaking, then?

I presume the will??

 

[Ender]

How would the voice of conscience that is stiffled be certain in a person’s awareness?

Certainty is not exclusive to the right conscience; it can also proceed from the faulty conscience as well as the will. The point is, if you disagree with someone about the morality of an act, and you both claim to be certain of your position, you have no basis for asserting that your position is correct and his incorrect. This is the result of holding certainty as the guarantor of correctness.

It is true we have no way to judge another’s certainty, though it is a common enough practice. To question whether this “certainly” is a standard of right and wrong, when certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience and results in the certain judgment of conscience, is to question whether God’s law could be the standard of right and wrong.

Questioning someone’s certain judgment has nothing to do with questioning God’s law. It is merely to question the validity of claiming that certainty guarantees the correctness of a moral judgment. That is, certainty does not mean one has heard God’s voice. This is precisely the point where we differ.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Certainty is not exclusive to the right conscience; it can also proceed from the faulty conscience as well as the will. The point is, if you disagree with someone about the morality of an act, and you both claim to be certain of your position, you have no basis for asserting that your position is correct and his incorrect. This is the result of holding certainty as the guarantor of correctness.
Questioning someone’s certain judgment has nothing to do with questioning God’s law. It is merely to question the validity of claiming that certainty guarantees the correctness of a moral judgment. That is, certainty does not mean one has heard God’s voice. This is precisely the point where we differ.

Ender

It has been said more than once that a person can sin even when following the certain judgment of conscience. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger explains in a quote above, and it concerns anemnesis. Doing what we “believe” is wrong is not to obey or disobey the certain judgment of conscience.

(Comment #498)

What is meant by certainty? There is a fundamental difference between the certain judgement of conscience and certainly as belief. It has not been said that the certain judgment of conscience guarantees “the correctness of moral judgment”. ‘Certainty’ as a belief is apart from conscience and is in itself either correct or not. It could for instance be incorrect as the result of a misunderstanding by the intellect of Church teaching or simply as the result of the lack of this knowledge.

There is still a misunderstanding of the difference between the certain judgment of conscience that must be obeyed and the judgment of the will.

 

[Rau]

There is still a misunderstanding of the difference between the certain judgment of conscience that must be obeyed and the judgment of the will.

Pity the poor individual wondering what he hears, and thus whether he should obey.

 

[Rau]

To question whether this “certainly” is a standard of right and wrong, when certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience and results in the certain judgment of conscience, is to question whether God’s law could be the standard of right and wrong.

It has been said more than once that a person can sin even when following the certain judgment of conscience. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger explains in a quote above…

Am I the only one who is not seeing how following the law of God can lead to sin (as these 2 quotes taken together require)?

 

[PaulinVA]

I presume the will??

Or, an improperly-formed conscience.

 

[LongingSoul]

Am I the only one who is not seeing how following the law of God can lead to sin (as these 2 quotes taken together require)?

I have been of the belief that conscience is like a muscle that develops with use and practice like learning to walk. Taking the first steps may lead to falls especially if you reject the help and guidance of your parents… but even there the falls are a lesson in themselves.

 

[Ender]

What is meant by certainty? There is a fundamental difference between the certain judgement of conscience and certainly as belief.

I make no distinctions between different kinds of certainty. Either you are certain your judgment is correct or you are not.

It has not been said that the certain judgment of conscience guarantees “the correctness of moral judgment”.

On the one hand you make this statement, which implies the certain judgment of the conscience can err, and on the other you say: “certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience.” If certainty was in fact nothing other than God’s voice then how could it ever err? I truly don’t know which position you are taking here.

‘Certainty’ as a belief is apart from conscience and is in itself either correct or not. It could for instance be incorrect as the result of a misunderstanding by the intellect of Church teaching or simply as the result of the lack of this knowledge.

How many flavors of certainty do you acknowledge, and how are we to distinguish them? If I say I am certain abortions are morally acceptable, how would you dispute me?

There is still a misunderstanding of the difference between the certain judgment of conscience that must be obeyed and the judgment of the will.

How do the differences in certanties manifest themselves? If I am certain my choice in a given situation is morally just, how do I know whether the certainty comes from the will or the conscience?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I make no distinctions between different kinds of certainty. Either you are certain your judgment is correct or you are not.
On the one hand you make this statement, which implies the certain judgment of the conscience can err, and on the other you say: “certainty results from hearing the voice of God’s law inscribed on the conscience.” If certainty was in fact nothing other than God’s voice then how could it ever err? I truly don’t know which position you are taking here.
How many flavors of certainty do you acknowledge, and how are we to distinguish them? If I say I am certain abortions are morally acceptable, how would you dispute me?
How do the differences in certanties manifest themselves? If I am certain my choice in a given situation is morally just, how do I know whether the certainty comes from the will or the conscience?

Ender

Perhaps it was that from the age of six we were taught and constantly reminded to listen to our conscience. The certain judgment of conscience is not belief, and it can also err. It is neither subjective nor objective as the terms are commonly defined. This is not easily grasped, if it can even be understood by the intellect. It is learned by experience and is spiritual. It is disconcerting to realize this is now perhaps not widely understood.

 

[Rau]

I have been of the belief that conscience is like a muscle that develops with use and practice like learning to walk. Taking the first steps may lead to falls especially if you reject the help and guidance of your parents… but even there the falls are a lesson in themselves.

Fair enough. But who will explain how the two statements I quoted (post #503) can stand together?

 

[Thomas_White]

Fair enough. But who will explain how the two statements I quoted (post #503) can stand together?

“It has been stated more than once that a person can sin even when following the certain judgment of conscience. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger explains in a quote above…” (#503, which you quote).

The certain judgment of conscience can err. When this error occurs, God’s law is not followed. That is the explanation.

 

[Rau]

“It has been stated more than once that a person can sin even when following the certain judgment of conscience. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger explains in a quote above…” (#503, which you quote).

The certain judgment of conscience can err. When this error occurs, God’s law is not followed. That is the explanation.

That contradicts the first quote which declares the certain judgement to result from the hearing of God’s law. Thus it can’t err.