Some Catholics are ‘unnerved’ by current events in the Church, says Cardinal Pell

[TCEL]

I’m unnerved that more in the hierarchy aren’t jumping on Theology of the Body. Frankly, I think that will change. Folks, we *have *the answer, and the fact that Theology of the Body often meets with confusion or skepticism only further convicts me. I’m incorrigible. Now, I’m not talking about necessarily the sexual stuff in ToB, but the anthropology.

We’re so confused because our anthropology and philosophy are so messed up. It doesn’t make sense to double-down on them.

 

[phil19034]

You know he’s no Communist. You can disagree but when people add on comments “like those people are lazy and want everything handed to them” Are you not stereotyping a race of people ?

Johnson , Nixon, and George W. Bush were worst then Obama. How can you say the country is worst off now then before he took office ? People don’t realize how close the country came to a Great Depression. He’s not perfect but he has done a lot of good things. You can scream at Obama Care but even Trump agrees that the core principles of Previous Conditions, allowing your kids to stay longer on your health care, and closing the Donut Hole on your Medicare Drug Plan must be kept in any new health plan. Was he naive on religious freedoms in the ACA, yes he was.

Watch “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” on EWTN and then get back to me.

Obama, just like Hillary are both Saul Alinski disciples

 

[o_mlly]

…
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.” --CCC 1776. This is the teaching of the Church.

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” – CCC 1790 (emphasis mine). The qualification in 1790 is important in understanding the limits to one’s authoritative conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” – CCC 1790 (emphasis mine). The qualification in 1790 is important in understanding the limits to one’s authoritative conscience.

Yes, that is correct. This is again stated in CCC 1800.

 

[Thomas_White]

Cardinal Pell talks about submitting to the moral law and not emphasizing the primacy of conscience.

I’m still trying to understand what this means in number 301 of AL:

The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.340

Does anyone know what it means to know a moral rule without being able to follow it without “further sin”?

I want to interpret this accurately and charitably according to the Pope’s meaning.

It is not that Cardinal Pell isn’t emphasizing the primacy of conscience. Rather, it is that in accordance with CCC 1776, he is saying the conscience ought to hear the voice of God’s law. This is the primacy of conscience.

I do not know how this teaching could be reconciled with what is quoted above from number 301 of AL. Others are welcome to express their views.

 

[patricius79]

It is not that Cardinal Pell isn’t emphasizing the primacy of conscience. Rather, it is that in accordance with CCC 1776, he is saying the conscience ought to hear the voice of God’s law. This is the primacy of conscience.

I do not know how this teaching could be reconciled with what is quoted above from number 301 of AL. Others are welcome to express their views.

Right. Sorry. I meant that Cardinal Pell is speaking against a relativistic idea of conscience.

I’ve been asking about number 301 of AL for a while, and nobody seems to know what it means.

 

[carn]

I’ve been asking about number 301 of AL for a while, and nobody seems to know what it means.

Probably someone knows, maybe not in this forum; but is neither your nor mine buisiness to know, i guess.

 

[Thomas_White]

Right. Sorry. I meant that Cardinal Pell is speaking against a relativistic idea of conscience.

I’ve been asking about number 301 of AL for a while, and nobody seems to know what it means.

What I can understand of number 301 of AL is that it provides that while a person “may know full well the rule” (that is, to understand it objectively or intellectually), he may have “great difficulty” in understanding its ‘inherent values’ ". I can only understand this later part of number 301 as a reference to the heart: that is, the person *does not/] hear “the voice, ever calling him to do good and to avoid evil” that “sounds in his heart at the right moment…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.” (CCC 1776). This law inscribed on the heart is of course the moral law and the source of the true primacy of conscience.

I again do not know how number 301 of AL can be reconciled to this ancient teaching of the Church, for it seems to say that if a person has “great difficulty” in understanding “the inherent values” (that is, the moral law inscribed on his heart), he is then not culpable of sinning. This is hardly the teaching of the Church. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has described this as ‘anamnesis’, a situation that does not absolve a person of culpability at all. Rather, it involves a disturbance of the conscience, as we see in the example of a sociopath, and not a thing many people would experience.

I further cannot see how the choice of a lesser sin is anything but sin.

I hope this helps.*

 

[tseleehw]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/29/some-catholics-are-unnerved-by-current-events-in-the-church-says-cardinal-pell/

He added that those emphasising “the primacy of conscience” only seemed to apply it to sexual morality and questions around the sanctity of life. People were rarely advised to follow their conscience if it told them to be racist, or slow in helping the poor and vulnerable, the cardinal said.

This is a very astute observation by the Cardinal. This teaching does seem to be selectively applied by those who reference it when arguing that those in invalid marriages should be allowed to receive communion. People will perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to get themselves to believe that whatever action they are taking is right, especially in a situation like this where the sin is not readily apparent.

 

[graciew]

This is a very astute observation by the Cardinal. This teaching does seem to be selectively applied by those who reference it when arguing that those in invalid marriages should be allowed to receive communion. People will perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to get themselves to believe that whatever action they are taking is right, especially in a situation like this where the sin is not readily apparent.

Yes if you live on an island. No if you live in community.
No mental gymmastics.
Integration makes a lot of sense.

 

[Richca]

Cardinal Pell talks about submitting to the moral law and not emphasizing the primacy of conscience.

I’m still trying to understand what this means in number 301 of AL:

The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.340

Does anyone know what it means to know a moral rule without being able to follow it without “further sin”?

I want to interpret this accurately and charitably according to the Pope’s meaning.

Well, I think I can tell you what it cannot mean. It cannot mean that by doing God’s will which is obeying his commandments and law is sinning or leads to sin. A good human act is that which is in accord with the eternal law whereas a bad or sinful human act is that which is contrary to the eternal law as the CCC#1849 defines sin: an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Probably someone knows, maybe not in this forum; but is neither your nor mine buisiness to know, i guess.

I’d like to know. You know, like if it concerns my faith or the idea of family, of which I’m a part of.

 

[carn]

I’d like to know. You know, like if it concerns my faith or the idea of family, of which I’m a part of.

I would in a difficult situation mainly about me try to stick with what is clearly know from earlier documents and in case that still does not add up contact some priest who actually does latin mass, is known to be a bit “conservative” and/or speaks out against abortion.

With a family member, i would try to stick with the most “conservative” reading that that person likely will accept (with myself i have little reason not trying to stick to the letter).

Of course generally, the preferred solution is: ask a priest.

But still missing is the guideance if and what shall be done about “pastor hopping” so people just contacting different pastors till they receive the answer most suitable to them. Or what somebody should do, who reaches on one day one priest and on another day another priest and they suggest completely contradictory things about mortal sin.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’d like to know. You know, like if it concerns my faith or the idea of family, of which I’m a part of.

I will try explain number 301 of AL as I understand it. What follows are the traditional marriage vows. Here they are provided for the husband:

“I (husband) take you, (her name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days all the days of my life.”

Most of us would easily comprehend “full well” the literal meaning of these vows. However, number 301 of AL states the following: “A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great trouble in understanding its ‘inherent values…’.”

What might this mean? I will state it concisely. I believe it means a person might have “great trouble” in understanding right from wrong. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is of course essential for an understanding of the “inherent values” of the marriage vows. It would further mean that to violate these sacred vows would be simply wrong. As I understand CCC 1776, this wrong could not excuse culpability for violating the marriage vows.

Number 301 of AL then continues as follows: “…or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (emphasis added)

It is critical to note the reference in the quotation to “further sin”. The only reasonable conclusion would be that the subject is in an irregular union that results in the grave sin of adultery. Number 301 of AL then concludes as follows: “As the Synod fathers put it, factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision.”

Indeed they may. Nevertheless, the remaining difficulty is the reference in number 301 to “further sin”. What of this first sin that is referenced? Is it not the grave sin of adultery?

In my opinion, it is this that requires an explanation. I also believe it will prove very difficult to provide any such explanation. This is solely my opinion.

 

[JimG]

David Carlin seems to be one of those who is “unnerved” by current events in the Church. His comments for the Catholic Thing compare the current situation to a small leak in a dike, which, if left uncorrected, could lead to the whole dike collapsing. His comments are here.

 

[commenter]

I will try explain number 301 of AL as I understand it. What follows are the traditional marriage vows. Here they are provided for the husband:

“I (husband) take you, (her name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days all the days of my life.”

Most of us would easily comprehend “full well” the literal meaning of these vows. However, number 301 of AL states the following: “A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great trouble in understanding its ‘inherent values…’.”

What might this mean? I will state it concisely. I believe it means a person might have “great trouble” in understanding right from wrong. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is of course essential for an understanding of the “inherent values” of the marriage vows. It would further mean that to violate these sacred vows would be simply wrong. As I understand CCC 1776, this wrong could not excuse culpability for violating the marriage vows.

Number 301 of AL then continues as follows: “…or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (emphasis added)

It is critical to note the reference in the quotation to “further sin”. The only reasonable conclusion would be that the subject is in an irregular union that results in the grave sin of adultery. Number 301 of AL then concludes as follows: “As the Synod fathers put it, factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision.”

Indeed they may. Nevertheless, the remaining difficulty is the reference in number 301 to “further sin”. What of this first sin that is referenced? Is it not the grave sin of adultery?

In my opinion, it is this that requires an explanation. I also believe it will prove very difficult to provide any such explanation. This is solely my opinion.

There are lots of things that used to be common knowlege among Catholics, and often others, that are not at all common knowledge now. In these times of ignorance, and misinformation, the Church has 2 choices with documents:
Either re-present the full teaching of the Church (for example on Marriage); or…

Be very brief, omit any loose ends or footnotes that, in times of ignorance, could be the “nose of the camel under the tent”.

Later clarification is better than no clarification, but many people who see or hear about or are affected by the loose ends will not get the future clarification(s).

 

[Thomas_White]

David Carlin seems to be one of those who is “unnerved” by current events in the Church. His comments for the Catholic Thing compare the current situation to a small leak in a dike, which, if left uncorrected, could lead to the whole dike collapsing. His comments are here.

Interesting article. I have come to essentially see the situation the same way. During the synod, I could envision a scenario where a Catholic in an irregular civil marriage following a divorce might be permitted to receive communion following proper discernment in the inner forum (in effect an annulment as I saw it). What I did not foresee are the circumstances outlined in number 301 of AL. If I correctly understand them, I cannot agree.

It would be interesting to learn how the conclusions of number 301 ever came about. It seems to permit the reception of communion to at least some Catholics who are in the state of grave sin. It is nearly impossible to helieve that this was the intended interpretation, but if many credible sources are correct, it is what it is.

 

[abucs]

I think in the current discussion it is a very pertinent question to ask how we can tell where conscience finishes and self-will begins.