Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

[DaveBj]

Well, well, well, everyone . . . snip

Now I have a headache, and I can’t find my aspirin

On a more serious note, thank you for the time and effort that went into that post. The downside is now that I know the terms, I find myself to be a Rigorist Catholic in an increasingly Laxist church environment, albeit not in our parish.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, well, well, everyone, I have discovered Blue Horizon’s secret. And it’s all her fault, because she erroneously said that Card. Cottier had provided a good definition of rigorism, and I planned to contend that he had provided no definition at all.

In my research to find an actual definition of the word, I ran across the little-known definition of rigorism: “(in the Roman Catholic Church) formerly, the doctrine that in doubtful cases of conscience the strict course is always to be followed.”

Well, of course I had to follow that up, and read a few articles, which were slightly confusing in the differences in small details, but I got the gist of the thing.

There is a whole area of Catholic moral theology which concentrates on when one may act in a certain way, and within (?) that area, a set of schools of thought which discuss the matter along a spectrum, since it is true that decisions so often do lie along a spectrum.

Imagine, if you will, a line, at the left of which is the idea of Rigorism (possibly exceeded by Absolute Rigorism). Some of my sources indicated a difference between Rigorism and Absolute Rigorism; unfortunately, it was difficult for me to tell if there is definitely a difference or not, and I don’t have time to look into the matter right now.

Rigorism holds that in the case of doubt, one *must *stick to what is known to be morally permitted —one is not permitted to veer onto the other side of liberty— or, that to veer to the side of liberty, the view must be most or almost certainly probably all right.

So now we know what Cardinal Cottier was talking about, and I must say that I disagree with him, but will not go into that now.

To get back to the spectrum, on the opposite side of Rigorism is Laxism, which holds that to err on the side of liberty is morally acceptable even if there is only slight evidence that to do so would be moral, or as few as one opinion that it would be all right.

These two extremes, Rigorism (or maybe only Absolute Rigorism) and Laxism, have been condemned in some form by the Vatican,

In between these two extremes lie a few other choices, with varying degrees of balance, known as Æquiprobabilism, Probabilism, and Probabiliorism.

And then there is one which is slightly different from the above systems: Compensationism. Compensationism adds a new element to the equation, that of a reason proportionate in gravity to the gravity of the law involved.

Oooohhhhh, iiiinnnnteresting! This begins to sound a lot like the arguments put forth for various courses of action, but in particular, for allowing the D&R to receive the Eucharist: you know what I mean, all the *stories *of people *feeling bad. *

The argument may rest on something BH pointed out in my commenting that leaving would not involve sin. BH pointed out that in Familiaris Consortio, St Pope JP2 had said that couples could live continue to live together “when for serious reasons… a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate,” which BH in post 193 on page 13 considers to form a basis for the sinfulness of a D&R couple’s separating if there are children involved.

Well, this is as far as I have gotten with this, but it explains a lot to me, and it is quite a relief to me to understand that there is (or may be, after all, it is not *certain *that Pope Francis is operating under this moral system) some reasoning behind this… event.

Link to Catholic Encyclopedia article

Link to Wikipedia article

During college, math, physics and chemistry were called rigorous.:frighten: Folklore and poetry were not. Hope this helps.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

http://www.americamagazine.org/site..._/public/main_image/cottier.jpg?itok=9ZdKQOLg

Certainly. If there exist acts that are inherently good or bad, two essential dimensions of moral life must always be taken into consideration. First, the law of “growth.” By virtue of the grace of baptism, everyone is called to holiness. Christian life is founded on an urge that transforms it into a journey, an ascent, towards perfection, in view of which it has to overcome obstacles and temptations and repent of possible falls. To define this progress, the Synod on the Family of 1980 used the expression “law of gradualness.” St. John Paul II picked it up in his apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio.” Of course, one must not confuse the “law of gradualness” with the “graduality of the law.” By “gradualness” here we mean the progress made by the subject towards perfection.

And the second dimension?

It is a dimension that very often is not taken into account: the doctrine about the connection among virtues, whose soul is charity and whose guide is prudence. At the pastoral and spiritual direction levels, one cannot eradicate one particular virtue from this interweaving. One must respect the existential coordinates of the spiritual life of persons. In rigorism there is embedded a brutality that runs contrary to the gentleness with which God guides each person.

Indeed, rigorism is a brutality. It seems to me that the Year of Mercy serves also to dispel this brutality.

Undoubtedly, the Year of Mercy will illumine the 2015 synod and will imprint it with its style. There are persons, men and women, who, scandalized by the church because of a negative judgment issued in an impersonal and soulless manner, feel distanced from and deeply rejected by her. The responsibility of confessors here is great. Any judgment that is expressed must always and everywhere be presented and formulated in language that clearly expresses the church’s motherly concern. Pope Francis insists on the beauty and the joy of Christian life that the church ought to present. Through the voice of her pastors, the church must convey the message that she is being guided by the demands of divine mercy.

Cardinal Cottier, “Brutalità del Rigorismo, Delicatezza della Misericordia: Intervista al cardinale Georges Cottier O.P.," La Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 8, 2015.

 

[anthrogirl]

ROME- Catholics who find themselves in what the Church considers “non-legitimate” situations, such as being divorced and civilly remarried, can receive Communion as long as they want to change their situation but cannot act on their desire because doing so would lead to further sin.

That’s the final word, at least according to the Vatican’s key interpreter of the law, Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, who was appointed by Benedict XVI in 2007 as President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

According to the Vatican’s constitution, this office’s work “consists mainly in interpreting the laws of the Church.”

However, per his own words, he wrote his new book The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia not as a canon law expert but to try to “unpack [Amoris’s] rich doctrinal and pastoral message.”

[More…] cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/14/vaticans-legal-chief-says-desire-change-enough-communion/

What would Jesus do? Love or hate? Open the door or close it? Offer his hand or turn his back? Shun the Samaritan because he is different or use what is common to find communion? When we turn our backs and shut out homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, atheists, we are turning our backs on God’s beloved children. When we turn our backs on fellow sinners, who have divorced and aborted, we turn our backs on ourselves because we cannot cast the first stone. Local priests should be allowed to make the calls on forgiving parishioners because they know the stories, the lives, and hopeful futures of their flocks. Rigid, blanket “no communion” rules have no place in our faith. They are guidlelines by which religiously educated, ordained men can make decisions on how best to serve God’s people. I am very proud of my Catholic Church and have faith that God’s love, compassion and acceptance of the Samaritan in us all, will be the guiding principle through which all decisions of our church are made.

 

[goout]

http://www.americamagazine.org/site..._/public/main_image/cottier.jpg?itok=9ZdKQOLg

Cardinal Cottier, “Brutalità del Rigorismo, Delicatezza della Misericordia: Intervista al cardinale Georges Cottier O.P.," La Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 8, 2015.

And?
**You **cast St Jerome as a rigorist. And Cardinal Burke. Not Card Cottier.

Every generation has its Cardinal Bourke and more extreme rigorist saints who only provide one side of the whole picture which is bigger.
…
So excuse me if I suggest St Jerome’s rigorist interpretation of Scripture (let alone the Deposit of Faith) is a bit skewed in this area (heavily Mosaic Old Testamentish) and he was canonised in spite of this sincere but mistaken “exegesis/teaching” on these points.

So we have a layperson from 2017 judging the spiritual disposition of perhaps the most respected Catholic biblical scholar of all time. Who lived centuries ago. That strikes me as…rigorist and/or fundamentalist…judgment completely out of context.

Are you standing by that characterization? Does the Church call St Jerome a rigorist? Anyone else of any repute in the Church call him a rigorist?

I believe the king has left the house without his clothes.

 

[RCinMT]

You mean like Pope Francis and Cardinal Bourke? .

No, I mean anytime somebody challenges you, you insult them or imply that they aren’t mature or intelligent enough to handle your thesis. The problem is that when Church teaching, the preponderance of which rebuts your thesis, is put forward, you resort to veiled insults. I have yet to see you provide a prolonged rebuttal on the basis of the Bible or Church doctrine.

 

[RCinMT]

What would Jesus do? Love or hate? Open the door or close it? Offer his hand or turn his back? Shun the Samaritan because he is different or use what is common to find communion?

On the surface, this line of thinking is textbook relativism. There can be no argument that the underpinning of all of our relationships are to be rooted in love as commanded by Christ. However, it is reductionist in the extreme to contend that there’s nothing beyond love.

The Church, based on Christ’s words in the Bible, makes objective truth claims. Encouraging others to learn and accept those claims is large part of what underpins the Christian ideal of love, love and living in the truths both being choices.

When we turn our backs and shut out homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, atheists, we are turning our backs on God’s beloved children.

This is an extremely vague comment. If you by “turning our backs and shutting out” you mean holding that the Church contains the fullness of truth and that we who claim to be Catholic are to abide by and live these truths and not affirm sins then I have to disagree.

If, however, you mean discriminating, persecuting or ignoring the suffering of the people you listed then, also clearly, Catholics must always uphold the dignity of all people. For instance, I oppose the death penalty with every fiber of my being; however, that doesn’t mean I condone, abet or disregard the act of murder, especially when the murderer is unrepentant.

When we turn our backs on fellow sinners, who have divorced and aborted, we turn our backs on ourselves because we cannot cast the first stone. Local priests should be allowed to make the calls on forgiving parishioners because they know the stories, the lives, and hopeful futures of their flocks.

Local priests are not permitted to change doctrine or to disregard Biblical teachings and truths.

Further, it’s important to understand that Christ’s love knew no limits but Christ didn’t have truck with ongoing sin. The kind of unconditional acceptance that you seem to condone would have entailed Christ not only forgiving the prostitute for her past sins but inviting her to travel with he and the disciples and continue plying her trade, with the bonus of a large number of potential clients being gathered in the great multitudes of people coming to hear him speak. It would have meant inviting a tax collector to join he in the disciples with the promise of surely finding some tax evaders on the roads and in the aforementioned crowds.

Rigid, blanket “no communion” rules have no place in our faith. They are guidlelines by which religiously educated, ordained men can make decisions on how best to serve God’s people.

Then naming and defining sins no longer have a place in the faith either. With this line of thinking our only call is to love. In point of fact, the argument actually reduces the value of communion to nothing: if all we have to do is love and we all love–by which I assume you mean we accept everything and live by the notion that “everybody has their own truths”–then we’re in communion with Christ constantly. And there’s nothing the Church has to offer.

I am very proud of my Catholic Church and have faith that God’s love, compassion and acceptance of the Samaritan in us all, will be the guiding principle through which all decisions of our church are made.

It’s not your Catholic Church. Nor is it mine. Nor is Pope Francis’s. It’s Christ’s Church. And in Christ’s Church we got to hear His teachings which do include some antiquated ideas of morality which when denied and ignored, we are told, lead to eternal damnation. Heaven and hell are very real and I quite take God at God’s word in terms of believing that there is a hell and it’s not empty despite the contrary claims (hopes?) of modern relativists.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And?
**You **cast St Jerome as a rigorist. And Cardinal Burke. Not Card Cottier.

So we have a layperson from 2017 judging the spiritual disposition of perhaps the most respected Catholic biblical scholar of all time. Who lived centuries ago. That strikes me as…rigorist and/or fundamentalist…judgment completely out of context.

Are you standing by that characterization? Does the Church call St Jerome a rigorist? Anyone else of any repute in the Church call him a rigorist?

I believe the king has left the house without his clothes.

Cf. my previous post, viz:

And if we look at Jerome’s complete text, in this rarely ever quoted lesser work, I think we see other things that would today be regarded with abhorrence by the Church Universal.

“If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now… her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord.” St Jerome.

So here we have a woman who leaves her husband because he’s a philanderer, an adulterer, a sodomite. And if she co-habits even briefly with another guy who then leaves her … and she attempts (unlikely but Jerome himself posits this) to return to her only true marriage/husband…this too is wrong even if her true husband agrees - because she is defiled.
I think her Sodomite husband might be somewhat more defiled than she but Jerome overlooks this as a reason, presumably because he is a man.

Its an interesting question as to whether Jerome was canonised because of such “pastoral” rigour or in spite of it. Canonisation of course is no guarantee that any particular words of a saint are in accord with the mind of the Church Universal.

Judge St Jerome’s error here for yourself .

 

[goout]

Cf. my previous post, viz:

Judge St Jerome’s error here for yourself .

I don’t judge St Jerome you did.
I’ll take your line here as a permanent evasion.
It’s ok.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, I mean anytime somebody challenges you, you insult them or imply that they aren’t mature or intelligent enough to handle your thesis. The problem is that when Church teaching, the preponderance of which rebuts your thesis, is put forward, you resort to veiled insults. I have yet to see you provide a prolonged rebuttal on the basis of the Bible or Church doctrine.

I’m reminded of a tennis opponent I used to have. He really thought himself great. And I suppose in some circles, he was. He had all the expensive equipment, took lessons at the bolleteri academy, and then league play started. His serve was beautiful and technically perfect. His strokes, uniform, effortless and he hit the ball hard.
Here is the thing.
I beat him every single time we played. I mean every time. Over the course of 3 years my record was probably 50-0 against him.
Was I better player? Maybe, but there were times when he took the first set and I KNEW I would win. He even, (and this is important) would offer to give me pointers. Commenting on my backhand or some such thing.
How did I win every time? Because that’s not a common record to have against someone in your rating. The guy absolutely thought he was better than anyone. And he was good. If you watched the match without keeping score you would assume I lost.
His downfall every time was two fold.

1. He was a headcase like a baseball pitcher or a football kicker. Question one close line shot, ask him if he was footfaulting, win one point and celebrate a little too much and the guy was toast.
2. He was so sure of his superiority that when the score didn’t bear that out, he collapsed. He would make snide remarks like " lucky shot" or try to give “pointers” on changeovers.
   He was great. He won a lot of things. Just not if someone wasn’t rattled by him.
   And as long as I wasn’t on his side of the draw…

Just thought I’d share that story…

 

[petra22]

http://www.americamagazine.org/site..._/public/main_image/cottier.jpg?itok=9ZdKQOLg
Cardinal Cottier, “Brutalità del Rigorismo, Delicatezza della Misericordia: Intervista al cardinale Georges Cottier O.P.," La Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 8, 2015.

Was Jesus being brutal to the woman at the well when he told her the last man she had was not her husband… go and sin no more??? Was that brutal? It could have put undue stress on her and her children??? Be ye perfect as your heavenly father is perfect… as much as we can here on earth we are to acknowledge our faults and go and sin NO MORE… Is that painful, yes, it can be… Brutal???

 

[St_Francis]

I just want to ask this to make sure I understand correctly, and I hope you don’t mind my asking: the first husband is forbidden to take her back because he has given her the bill of divorcement and so they are not at all married, right?

Today, if two Catholics divorced, the wife who remarried then left her second husband could, if her actual (eg, first) husband were willing, return to him because they would still be married in the eyes of the Church (is that right?).

If, however, that first marriage had been declared null, she would not be able to return to him because in the eyes of the Church they would not be married at all.

Is what St Jerome saying analogous to the second situation, because, as you say, the bill of divorcement is like an annullment?

And if he agreed, could they marry, or would that too be forbidden? I ask because St Jerome says “he may not take her back…” and that could mean he is not permitted to or that he may or may not take her back.

That being said, even if St. Jerome had suggested something along the lines of your misreading of his position, such a statement would be readily understandable in light of Church teaching. As we read in Scripture: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor 7:10-11)

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know. This seems too dependent on definition to be a useful observation, especially the want the term liberal was being used. In a classic sense of pressing the boundaries of theology, St. Francis, St. Bernard and St. Louis de Montfort seemed to be on the forward edge of theology. Even today, some hymns taken from St. Francis are considered modern. In a modern sense of the liberal, it is too early to tell, though St. John Paul II called Dorothy Day a Servant of God and her cause is open.

I also do not like comparing Cardinal Burke with past saints, good or bad, yet this has happened over and over, whether it be to St. Jerome for his “rigidity” (I perfer the word dour, based on looks alone), or to St. Athanasius, because…, well every Catholic controversy is reduced to Athanasius sooner or later.

Your views becomes all the more baffling when we consider that St. Jerome was not merely a “good” exegete, but has been considered for centuries to be the greatest exegete to have ever lived. The infallible Council of Trent declared him to be “The greatest doctor in explaining the Scriptures” and Pope Benedict XV in his encylical Spiritus Paraclitus did not hesitate to proclaim that St. Jerome is “the Greatest Doctor divinely given to the Church for understanding the Bible”.

Much of his brilliance came from his linguistic skills. However, I remember that even Jesus did not seek to leave the Church with a fixed letter that remained unchanged. If St. Jerome was alive today, he would have an extra 16 centuries of data upon which to reflect. We cannot dismiss the dynamic nature of the Church in the elevation of St. Jerome’s reflections on this topic. He might well have even agreed with St. John Paul’s understanding of the Theology of the Body, who I view as the greatest theologian on this specific topic.

 

[St_Francis]

Thank you very much, J. What you wrote was very clear, comprehensive, and helpful

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know. This seems too dependent on definition to be a useful observation, especially the want the term liberal was being used. In a classic sense of pressing the boundaries of theology, St. Francis, St. Bernard and St. Louis de Montfort seemed to be on the forward edge of theology. Even today, some hymns taken from St. Francis are considered modern. In a modern sense of the liberal, it is too early to tell, though St. John Paul II called Dorothy Day a Servant of God and her cause is open.

I also do not like comparing Cardinal Burke with past saints, good or bad, yet this has happened over and over, whether it be to St. Jerome for his “rigidity” (I perfer the word dour, based on looks alone), or to St. Athanasius, because…, well every Catholic controversy is reduced to Athanasius sooner or later.

Much of his brilliance came from his linguistic skills. **However, I remember that even Jesus did not seek to leave the Church with a fixed letter that remained unchanged. **If St. Jerome was alive today, he would have an extra 16 centuries of data upon which to reflect. We cannot dismiss the dynamic nature of the Church in the elevation of St. Jerome’s reflections on this topic. He might well have even agreed with St. John Paul’s understanding of the Theology of the Body, who I view as the greatest theologian on this specific topic.

What do you mean by the part that I bolded, and where do you remember it from? I ask because that is a really broad statement!

 

[pnewton]

What do you mean by the part that I bolded, and where do you remember it from? I ask because that is a really broad statement!

I did not mean anything strange by it. Jesus taught, but wrote nothing. He left Peter with the instructions to feed His sheep. He left so we could have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. *

 

[St_Francis]

I did not mean anything strange by it. Jesus taught, but wrote nothing. He left Peter with the instructions to feed His sheep. He left so we could have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. *

Yes, I see. You didn’t mean that *nothing *was fixed. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist .

You call it a “lesser work”, as if to imply that it is of no consequence compared to more “serious works”

Not at all. Sunspots for example are in fact not black…they too are very bright in their own right and can also damage the naked eye.

You also try to dismiss the text by suggesting that it is “rarely ever quoted”.

Indeed I do no dismissing of this historically influential text on marriage.
What I referred to as “rarely ever quoted” is the verse you left out about not being able to return to her (lets call her Fabiola) husband.
It is my repeated experience that those protagonists who argue for the rigorism of Jerome as representative of the Church Universal on these matters as a rule do not also quote the verse I noted - and you are no exception.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
I think we see other things that would today be regarded with abhorrence by the Church Universal.

You betray here your, I am sorry to say, profound ignorance of Church teaching.

I may indeed have some ignorance on the finer points of Jerome’s personal teaching on marriage as I am not a specialist re his writings. But given the teaching and practice of remarriage and divorce in the first 1000 years of the Church is highly complex and far from monolithic, argued about on some important points not only by the leaders of the times themselves but also by scholars and theologians specialising in same … then I suggest we all need to tread as carefully here as do the angels - rather than make comparisions over who swings the most lead .

For whatever reason you introduce the notion that this adultery would consist of “brief” cohabitation,

What a strange and inconsequential detail you pick up on. I simply observe that however long the new cohabitation (ie 2nd “marriage”) was it makes no difference according to the principles Jerome pronounces on. What is your beef with that exactly?

but St. Jerome gives an example of a woman who, and I quote, “leaves her second husband”; this, in conjunction with his citing of Deut. 24:1-4, clearly indicates that he has in mind a woman who cheated on her first husband,

By what stretch of the imagination do you assume Fabiola cheated on her husband before leaving? It is quite clear the writer of the letter to Jerome gave no such suggestion or hint whatsoever in the brief details supplied. It is the somewhat misogynist Jerome who thinks this by suddenly introducing that example from the OT - and you yourself have unquestioningly gone along with that and attempted to turn it into a fact against Fabiola!

It is my understanding that Amandus, who wrote to Jerome on this case, simply asked " 'Can a woman (Fabiola) who has divorced her first husband on account of his vices and who has during his lifetime under compulsion married again, communicate with the Church without first doing penance?"
Jerome seems to have no more factual details than this. If I am mistaken I would be interested to see what extra details you can quote for me that support your as yet unsupportable comparision to the OT case Jerome “near enough is good enough” seems to use for his advice?

left with “a bill of divorcement” (our modern equivalent being an annulment),

It strikes me as a very long bow indeed that you are trying to draw here.
Are you really suggesting that Fabiola’s sodomite husband (or Fabiola herself) had their marriage declared null and void - so they were both in fact free to marry again? And this on the basis of a “writ of divorce” that Amandus never mentioned, and which in fact again comes from Jerome’s OT example…which clearly was not by any means close to what we would regard as an annulment today. May as well call a sundial an atomic clock .

Perhaps you can reference a few scholars who posit that Fabiola here received an annulment from her sodomite husband by means of his personal “bill of divorce” (rather than an ecclesiastical judge) as you state.

Perhaps you could advise which partner wrote the “annulment” and what the grounds were for putting Fabiola away. You suggest it was Fabiola’s husband who wrote the bill, but what were the grounds? It couldn’t be cheating because it seems Fabiola didn’t cheat, that was the OT story. Perhaps Fabiola’s husband granted the annulment to himself for his own sodomy and adultery against her?

I have never ever come across such a strange reading of Jerome’s 55th Letter to Amandus from Patristic scholars other than yourself but I may indeed be ignorant as you suggest as this is not my area of specialisation.

It is really somewhat impossible to discuss the rest of your post with these unusual interpretations of yours still in play.
But then I may be missing some of the facts of this incident.

 

[Thomas_White]

My writings on this forum do not have the same authority as divinely inspired Scripture, nor are my writings followed by an organisation which was commissioned by God himself to authoritatively spread those teachings across the globe while being promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. The Church has already spoken with authority on the matters discussed here through 2,000 years of clear moral teaching and traditional practice.

Nobody questions the validity of “discernment” in the sense of analysing the situation, its components and context AND the Church’s teaching, and then determining how to act in accord with the Church’s teaching; it is the Church which infallibly communicates teaching on matters of faith and morals. It is when people drop the word “discernment” into every sentence to disguise an attempt to discern contrary to the Church’s teaching.

Private letters to Bishops which the Pope has refused to repeat, reinforce or present an argument for, are not infallible expressions of the Magisterium’s teachings on matters of faith and morals, as you well know.

Those who want a change in teaching on the immorality of sex outside of marriage and the subservience of conscience to objective truth expressed in Church moral teaching have already decided what destination they wish to arrive at, and are trying to use any argument available to get there as though “the practical ends justify the theological means”.

This is precisely why nobody is talking about Cardinal Kasper’s “penitential pathway” any longer. His argument served its practical purpose, and now it and the principles on which it was based and its theological reasoning have been discarded now that a different argument based on the “sovereignty of personal conscience” has been found which is thought to be more useful in advancing the agenda.

It is not so simple as that. A common misunderstanding of Church teaching is that the conscience is subservient to “objective truth expressed in Church moral teaching” But there is this:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

Cardinal Ratzinger explains: “Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary agains the requirements of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience presents him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is the last resort, is beyond the claims of external social groups, even the official Church…” (Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II)

Christ, and not Apostolic preaching, is the source of moral truth.

The Church’s teaching on conscience has been a core belief of Catholicism since the early years of the Church. It is hardly a thing that has been found in the year 2017 in an attempt to advance an agenda. That is nonsense, but the teaching is nevertheless now at the core of two differing conceptions of it. It is true that the misapplication of this teaching may lead to moral relativism, and this fact represents a spiritual crisis for both the modern Church and for human beings. That it does is more and more apparent, and it could be said that the voice of God’s law that is inscribed on man’s heart has become increasing muted. That the source of the moral authority of the conscience is questioned is surely a crisis of faith, and consequently many seek an “objective” truth, as found in what they erroneously believe is fixed doctrine. But the true source of moral teaching is Christ. It is a transcendent truth, a mysterious truth, that is open to prayer and the practice of the Catholic faith.

 

[goout]

It is not so simple as that. A common misunderstanding of Church teaching is that the conscience is subservient to “objective truth expressed in Church moral teaching” But there is this:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

Cardinal Ratzinger explains: “Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary agains the requirements of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience presents him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is the last resort, is beyond the claims of external social groups, even the official Church…” (Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II)

Christ, and not Apostolic preaching, is the source of moral truth.

The Church’s teaching on conscience has been a core belief of Catholicism since the early years of the Church. It is hardly a thing that has been found in the year 2017 in an attempt to advance an agenda. That is nonsense, but the teaching is nevertheless now at the core of two differing conceptions of it. It is true that the misapplication of this teaching may lead to moral relativism, and this fact represents a spiritual crisis for both the modern Church and for human beings. That it does is more and more apparent, and it could be said that the voice of God’s law that is inscribed on man’s heart has become increasing muted. That the source of the moral authority of the conscience is questioned is surely a crisis of faith, and consequently many seek an “objective” truth, as found in what they erroneously believe is fixed doctrine. But the true source of moral teaching is Christ. It is a transcendent truth, a mysterious truth, that is open to prayer and the practice of the Catholic faith.

False dichotomy between objective truth and the conscience.
The conscience is drawn toward unity with objective truth, in Christ who is the Truth himself.
You are falsely giving the conscience a moral autonomy which it doesn’t have.
P Benedict’s words are meant as a respect to conscience, not the exaltation and separation of it from objective truth.

Also, false dichotomy between Christ and Apostolic teaching.
It would be a rare (possibly even nonexistent) person who hears the voice of the Lord in an individualist way, outside Apostolic Tradition, or Church.
Christ is the Truth, and that truth is expressed and passed on, mercifully, through Tradition, Scripture, living Magisterium.
Conscience is called to unitive conformity with that.
That is not subservience, it is obedience.