It is Truth not conscience that has primacy. We can talk about one's best judgement in the concrete here and now about what they are by conscience to do or not to do. It is this judgement that is binding. This is to say nothing of whether one is in error or not nor anything about moral culpability.
Of course, you are completely right, I was just glad to see Pope Francis emphasise the primacy of an informed conscience (which inherently implies being informed by the Truth) over the ego of the autonomic individual. If adulterers inform themselves of the facts, there will be no leeway for them to transgress unless they defy their conscience. Please bear it in mind that I find it very difficult not to give credit to our Pope when I perceive it might be due to him. It is this tension between the necessity for loyalty to the papacy on the one hand and the conflicting necessity for loyalty to the Truth on the other which I find most difficult, particularly as this conflict is to a very great degree a new experience for me.
SGCatholic, I can't answer all of your questions but I woke up thinking about the reception of the Holy Eucharist in the hand because I was reading the thread about this late last night. This was not part of Vatican II, correct? I am not suggesting that you are stating that it was but I just want to verify my thoughts about this. I found the following link from ETWN which I believe confirms that it was not, https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm . Thank you in advance to anyone who can clear this up for me.
Carol55, I think it was not a direct result of Vatican II, but occurred soon after it. The following extract is from an article by Father Richard Heilman: Read the rest at https://www.romancatholicman.com/truth-communion-hand-standing/ AN INDULT BORN OUT OF DISOBEDIENCE The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world’s bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: “From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.” After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church. Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence. BERNARDIN’S CAMPAIGN So how did Communion in the hand come to America? In 1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand. The following year – which coincided with the end of Bernardin’s term as president – brought one final attempt. Bernadin appointed Archbishop Quinn, who became Bernardin’s immediate successor as NCCB president, to be the chief lobbyist for Communion in the hand. During the proceedings a brave bishop requested a survey of the bishops be taken – this survey would ask each bishop whether or not Communion in the hand was widely practiced in his diocese, for without the practice’s current wide-use the first condition of the indult would not be satisfied. *Of course, everyone knew that Communion in the hand was not a previously established practice in the United States. Though his request was seconded and supported in writing by five other bishops, Bernardin had the motion dismissed as “out of order.” The bishops then voted … only to once more fall short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee votes” from any bishop he could find – including retired bishops who no longer administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the two-thirds majority.
SGCatholic, Thank you so much! This is very helpful. I remember that it was highly encouraged in my parish about 25 years ago to prevent the spread of illness. From around that time, I believe, all of the children were taught to receive in the hand as part of their preparation for their First Holy Communion. So possibly around 1990, maybe, it was decided that this was the standard. There must have been a formal push in the USA at this time to make this change, hmmm. If I find something that confirms my thoughts I will post it. Thank you again!
SG, I don't think you feel as differently about the situation from the rest of us as you think you do. Just about everyone here sees what is going on. Most of us here are praying for Pope Francis and charitably sharing what we know with others here online and (hopefully) in our own personal lives as well. Petitions are circulated here to sign whenever they come up, etc. What else would you have us do? We are in effect watching a legal proceeding unfold with the dubia. It is the Cardinals who have the authority in the Church to take action in a real legal sense, not the laity. We can play a role, but it has to be governed by our station in the Church. God allowed each of us to reach the station in life that we have achieved. If He wanted us to decide these things more directly then He would have made us Cardinals. He did not. So our job is to pray, pray, pray! At times that may seem like we are not doing enough, but that is all we are asked to do along with remaining in a state of grace, doing our daily duties, performing penances and growing closer to God spiritually.
wsj.com U.S. Catholic Leaders Signal Resistance to Pope’s Agenda Ian Lovett and Francis X. Rocca 3-4 minutes Nov. 14, 2017 11:42 a.m. ET BALTIMORE—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops chose a conservative archbishop for a key post Tuesday, signaling resistance to Pope Francis’s vision for the church among the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, of Kansas City, was elected chairman of the committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a vote of 96 to 82, he defeated Cardinal Blase Cupich, of Chicago, who is seen as a liberal in the church and a close ally of the pope. The vote breaks a longstanding tradition of the position being held by a cardinal—an unusual lapse of deference in a highly rank-conscious body—and suggests that Catholic leaders in the U.S. remain largely resistant to the changes Pope Francis is trying to bring to the church. Some experts said that the slim margin of the vote shows growing support for Pope Francis’s agenda; others said it mostly reflected the tradition of a cardinal holding the post. Like all the bishops, Archbishop Naumann and Cardinal Cupich are both strong opponents of abortion and euthanasia. Archbishop Naumann said that he would keep the committee focused on those two issues, as it has been in recent years. Cardinal Cupich, meanwhile, indicated that he would have broadened the committee’s focus to include other issues like the death penalty, health care and poverty—a list more in line with the priorities Pope Francis advocated for. “It is clear since 2013 that a majority of them sees the message of Francis’ pontificate, esp. on life and marriage, as not adequate for the Catholic Church in the USA,” Massimo Faggioli, a theologian at Villanova, said on Twitter after the vote Tuesday. Stephen Schneck, a former director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America, said the vote indicated the continued resistance to Pope Francis among the U.S. bishops. “This is obviously a break with tradition, in that it’s going to someone who’s not a cardinal,” Mr. Schneck. “But I think it’s a very accurate picture of where the U.S. episcopacy is in relation to the efforts we see coming from Pope Francis and Rome.” The election will also have domestic political implications. In recent decades, abortion has led the Catholic church into an alliance with the Republican Party, said Patti Miller, author of “Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Church.” That alliance might have been challenged had Cardinal Cupich won, she said. “The USCCB is a conservative organization and clearly a majority of the bishops have no intention of backing down from the message that abortion is the most critical issue for Catholics, which is what this vote signifies,” Ms. Miller said. “The 96-82 margin suggests that more moderate voices may be ascendant in the conference and will continue to push a…framework that equalizes abortion with other social justice issues.” Write to Ian Lovett at Ian.Lovett@wsj.com and Francis X. Rocca at francis.rocca@wsj.com
You should know by now that in listening to PF speak you need clarification. When he speaks of 'formation' one has to ask 'formation to what'. His language is not clear and it is easy to assume he speaks in a language we all can hear, but he doesn't. He uses a coded language that allows for private interpretation.
Nevertheless, anyone with a desire to abide by the traditional teaching of the Church will have no difficulty in taking those statements to confirm them in their orthodoxy. All this ambiguity can come back to bite the liberals if their statements are not decoded as they intend. Those who speak straight never have to deal with that problem. Fatima, let's not wear out the tips of our fingers disagreeing over these matters. I'm not trying to be a 'fanboy' for Pope Francis. I am just continuing to hope that our prayers will be answered and he will change tack. Maybe it will come down to his relenting as he sees the writing on the wall. He does not appear to be winning the battle for hearts and minds. It is sad to see it all reduced to headcounts, but the liberals lost in that recent US bishops' appointment, with a mere Archbishop defeating a Cardinal, at that.
No need to argue What we are witnessing is pure Modernism. It is a deceptive enemy and that is what makes it so dangerous. Say one thing, something with some degree of ambiguity. Something that sounds Catholic, but can't be pinned down exactly. That gives you lots of wiggle room for the interpretation. I read the article you are speaking about and it is clearly able to be read in several ways. The charitable way is to read it and say that the Pope meant to refer to the classical and "Catholic" teaching on this issue. And maybe he did. But it can also be read in a more ambiguous way. The Catholic way to speak about conscience is to say that we are bound as Catholics to follow a well-formed conscience. Well-formed means a conscience that is aligning itself with what the Church has always taught, not just what we think our conscience is telling us by how we feel about something. So when invited to a "gay wedding" my "conscience" might be telling me: "I know the Church disapproves, but I have to think about my family and not alienate anyone." A well-formed conscience says: "The Church teaches that I may not attend any such functions because it gives rise to scandal and misleads people into understanding the position of the Church on such matters. We can see even prelates being dumbfounded as to how to react to this subversive and dangerous enemy. Just look at such varied responses as Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Burke. Both good men trying their best to navigate this Modernist morass. Wordplay got us into this mess.
Yes, but he only won by a slim margin when the "seamless garment" Bernardin protege obviously should have been defeated in a complete rout. Lets keep praying.
Oh yes, we must keep praying. A rout is what should have happened, but in this climate a win of any kind is valuable.
How did Pope Francis decide in the course of a phone call to the woman in Argentina that her conscience was well formed in line with Church teaching? What kind of pastoral accompaniment was that? What kind of example for priests? What kind of example for people in "irregular" relationships?
Who is the patron saint of obtaining the grace to hold one's tongue? I find myself needing help a lot in this regard lately...
I don't know, Brian, but the more I try to see the good in Pope Francis the more that particular gimmick proves that the pastoral accompaniment stuff is all a ruse to placate priests whose own conscience tells them that there is no workaround for adultery and sodomy. Don't forget that there is more than one conscience involved in the matter of giving Communion to people living openly in "irregular" unions with no intention of changing their living arrangements. Try as I might, I can't get out of my head his friend's statement that Pope Francis will make sure that none of his innovations can be changed in the future. He and his staunchest defenders act as though the Church is a political party while at the same time using the fallback of Papal infallibility which is laughable coming from people who had scant regard for the genuine Magisterial decisions of his predecessors. I'm so suspicious of him at this stage that whenever I hear of him making a statement affirming Church teaching I think of Pope Honorius being exonerated on the basis of a single letter. Pope Francis and his friends must be aware that a day of reckoning will come when a Pope worthy of the office will get the Church back on the narrow path. Pope Francis has made just enough orthodox pronouncements to save himself from being anathemised posthumously. That might be enough to save the hides of his heterdox inner circle if his immediate successor is the one to steady the barque. How sad to see that almost half the US Bishops would consider the capital punishment of a small number of convicted murderers equal to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn babies in a country where the babies' dead bodies are dismembered and sold on for lab experiments. And how sad that those who don't share that view are perceived to be opponents of the Vicar of Christ. (I say that as someone staunchly opposed to capital punishment).
What I see is that in response to posts such as the following one from BrianK, we have the following: In other words, the people who are aware that we have a 'destroyer' at the helm of our Catholic Church, are made to feel like they are the ones who are fomenting dissent and or/schism and are being disrespectful/proud and causing grief to our Lord. That no matter what this 'destroyer' is trying to do, we have to show him respect. Even when he preaches another gospel "other than the one [the apostles and first disciples] preached". As we know, scripture tells us - " let that one be accursed!"
The Church is full of hard doctines SG. One of them is that we must show respect for the Pope no matter how we personally feel about him. Believe me I understand how angry you are, but just remember that Jesus is in charge. Pope Francis cannot do one thing without permission from Heaven. That does not mean everything he does is the wish of God, just that it is allowed. And since God has allowed this man to become the supreme head of His Church we must show respect until such a point as God decides his reign is done. Let us not be like St. Peter and take up the sword against God's plans. This is our Cross, we must take it up with humility and thanksgiving.
