Magisterium: To Assent or Dissent?

[Lux_et_veritas]

Here is a pretty interesting document, written in 2004 that is relevant to any discussion of whether assent is required on matters of faith and morals with regards to the Magisterium.

The actual document (link in 2nd post to full text) covers a total of eleven points including this issue pertaining to the Magisterium. Please read and discuss all.

All I can say is that these bishops have a backbone!

Moral Theology: Recent Developments, Implications

NOTIFICATION BY THE IRISH BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE

1. The most significant of the prevailing errors in moral theology are as follows:

a) The denial of the binding force of the Magisterium on conscience, whereby the faithful (which includes theologians) “are obliged to submit to their Bishops’ decision made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals”, and that “[t]his submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra…” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25; cf. CCC, nn. 2032-2040). Behind this denial is the wrongful assumption that the Church’s teachings are to be accepted only to the extent one can accept the reasons given for them, thus reducing the Church’s teaching to one opinion among others, to be taken into consideration but not binding in conscience. This places one’s subjective judgment above that of the Church (see 10e below).

b) The uncritical acceptance of the tendency “to substitute a dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 5). What this involves is the failure to distinguish between “the everlasting from the changeable” (n. 52) and the denial that “beneath all the changes [in history] there is much that has its ultimate foundation in Christ, the same yesterday, today and for ever” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 10; Veritatis Splendor, n. 53). And so, it is falsely asserted that human nature as such is subject to change, with the result that the traditional understanding of natural law (natural justice) is denied, and morality is said to be subject to change.

c) The effective rejection of the Church’s understanding of natural law (illuminated by revelation). The Church does not teach, as is falsely claimed, that the moral order can be discovered from the regular and uniform physical laws of nature. But the law is called natural “not because it refers to the nature of irrational beings but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 42), and because it “expresses the dignity of the human person and lays the foundation for his fundamental rights and duties” (ibid., n. 51). Christ is the full revelation of that human dignity, whose Spirit throws light on what is otherwise but dimly known by human reason (cf. Rom 2:12-29; I Thes 4:1-8). The divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ensures that this light shines forth in every generation and every place, despite the distortions to which sinful humanity is prone.

See continuation, next post…

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Continued…

d) The explicit denial of moral absolutes, specifically those concrete acts which are intrinsically wrong in all situations, at all times, irrespective of the motive, foreseen good consequences or actual circumstances of the acting person. To justify this denial, theologians have proposed a number of theories (ultimately based on a now outdated utilitarianism), which are described variously as “consequentialist”, “teleologist” or “proportionalist”. Proportionalism, for example, weighs the good and bad effects of a choice in order to determine “the greater good” or “the lesser evil” which can be achieved in a given situation (cf. Veritatis Splendor, n. 75). Such theories are to be rejected (cf. ibid., nn. 71-93). They tend to reduce morality to intention (motivation) and overturn the basic moral principle that the end can never justify the means (cf. Rom 3:8). This they do by denying the wrongness per se (that is, in all circumstances, however exalted the motive or how pressing the particular situation may be) of such acts, for example, as in vitro fertilization, direct abortion, homosexual acts, contraception and direct sterilization. Many such objectively wrong actions are committed by people under duress of one kind or another or indeed in subjective ignorance about the actual wrongness of the action. In such cases, subjective guilt may be reduced, or even entirely absent. But the act is still intrinsically wrong (or evil); it prevents their full human flourishing, does not draw them closer to God and often causes damage to other people.

e) The promotion of a false understanding of conscience as though it could decide moral principles or norms, whereas it is subordinate to them, must find out what they are and make a judgment as to when and how they apply. In a word, one’s conscience is relevant for deciding what to do, not what principles one lives by; it governs acts, not principles. The false notion of conscience amounts to a claim to be able to determine what is good and evil (cf. Veritatis Splendor, nn. 35-37), namely, to choose what might constitute one’s own moral principles, often falsely described as “moral beliefs” or values, which may include those proposed by the Church, though not necessarily so (cf. ibid., nn. 54-64). The final criterion is subjective, indeed, irrational: what makes one feel happy here and now.

1. The above errors, in fact, are but various manifestations of a widespread moral relativism, itself based on the denial of our capacity to know objective truth with a minimum of certainty. Such moral relativism characterizes much of contemporary culture and gives these errors their plausibility. This is the main reason for the authoritative rejection of these errors by the Church’s Magisterium (cf. ibid., nn. 4-5; cf. also nn. 33, 84), whose teaching articulates, in season and out of season, the Truth that alone can make us free.

Full Text:

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/MORATHEO.HTM

 

[fix]

excellent

 

[felra]

Lux_et_veritas:

The most significant of the prevailing errors in moral theology are as follows:

Nail hit on the head. The heading could have just as well read: Key strategies of the Enemy to win Catholics away from the faith:

 

[E.E.N.S]

Love it!

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

This is awful to think, but I wonder if the USCCB has read it and how they feel about it.

I haven’t had a chance to read the entire document (about 4 pages printed), but I plan to tonite. There is some excellent background leading up to that about the conscience and forming it.