NOT ALL THIEVES ARE  STUPID     1. LONG  – TERM PARKING    Some  people left their car in the long-term parking at San Jose while away, and  someone broke into the car. Using the information on the car’s  registration in the glove compartment, they drove the car to the  people’s home in Pebble Beach and robbed it.  So I guess if we are going to leave the car in long-term parking, we  should NOT leave the registration/insurance cards in it, nor your remote  garage door opener. This gives us something to think about with all our  new electronic technology.       2. GPS:    Someone had their car broken into  while they were at a football game. Their car was parked on the  green which was adjacent to the football  stadium and specially allotted to football fans. Things stolen from the  car included a garage door remote control, some money and a GPS which had  been prominently mounted on the dashboard. When the victims got  home, they found that their house had been ransacked and just  about everything worth anything had been  stolen. The thieves had used the GPS to guide them to the house.  They then used the garage remote control  to open the garage door and gain entry to the house. The thieves  knew the owners were at the football  game, they knew what time the game was scheduled to finish and so  they knew how much time they had to clean  out the house. It would appear that they had brought a truck to  empty the house of its contents. Something  to consider if you have a GPS – don’t put your home address in it.  Put a nearby address (like a store or  gas station) so you can still find your way home if you need to, but no  one else would know where you live if  your GPS were stolen.      3. CELL  PHONES:    I  never thought of this! This lady has now changed her habit of how she  lists her names on her cell phone  after her handbag was  stolen. Her handbag, which contained her cell phone, credit card, wallet,  etc., was stolen. Twenty minutes later when  she called her hubby, from a pay phone telling him what had happened,  hubby says, “I received your text asking about our Pin number and I’ve  replied a little while ago” When they  rushed down to the  bank, the bank staff told them all the money was already withdrawn. The  thief had actually used the stolen cell phone to text  “hubby” in the contact list and got hold of the pin number. Within 20  minutes he had withdrawn all the money from  their bank account.      Moral lesson:  a. Do not disclose the relationship  between you and the people in your contact list. Avoid using names  like Home, Honey, Hubby, Sweetheart, Dad,  Mom, etc. b. And very importantly, when  sensitive info is being asked through texts, CONFIRM by calling  back. c. Also, when you’re being texted by friends or family to meet  them somewhere, be sure to call back to  confirm that the message came from them. If  you don’t reach them, be very careful about going places to meet  “family and friends” who text  you.      4. PURSE IN THE  GROCERY CART SCAM: A lady went grocery-shopping at a  local mall and left her purse sitting in the children’s seat of the cart  while she reached something off a shelf/ Wait  till you read the WHOLE story! Her wallet was stolen, and she reported  it to the store personnel. After  returning home, she received a phone call from the Mall Security  to  say that they had her wallet and that although  there was no money in it, it did still hold her personal papers. She  immediately went to pick up her wallet, only to  be told by Mall Security that they had not called her. By the time she  returned home again, her house had been  broken into and burglarized. The thieves knew that by calling and saying  they were Mall Security, they could lure  her out of her house long enough for them to burglarize it.

VATICAN CITY, VATICAN – MARCH 13: Newly elected Pope Francis I appears on the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica on March 13, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th Pontiff and will lead the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

July 17, 1967 – A Day That Will Live In Modernist Infamy

“Because that which is known of God is manifest in them.  For God hath manifested it unto them.”  [Douay-Rheims translation, Romans 1:19]

by John J. Arechiga

22 March 17

John J. Arechiga is known to me to be a researcher of exceptional ability.

For some time I have read the results of his research and at my urging 

he has agreed to allow me to publish several of his essays.  This essay 

addresses a matter of critical importance to the Roman Catholic Church at this moment in its history.  I publish this essay in the hope that it will contribute to the efforts of persons in the Church in authority who have the power to find solutions to the problems that currently afflict the Church.

 

+Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

The days of yore – traditional Catholicism – effectively ended on July 17, 1967.  

Why?  On that date Pope Saint Pius X’s comprehensive 1910 Oath Against Modernization was replaced with a tepid Profession of Faith.  Arguably, the tepid Profession of Faith reopened the modernist floodgates on July 17, 1967 – and is a day that will live in modernist infamy.  

Apparently, the comprehensive 1910 Oath Against Modernism had little effect on modernist oath takers.  Many modernist oath takers arguably took the comprehensive 1910 oath with mental reservation and/or purpose of evasion.  

You also have to wonder whether many of today’s clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries, have even heard about the comprehensive 1910 Oath Against Modernism.  

A collateral issue is whether the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s tepid Profession of Faith actually abrogated (I.e., did away with) Pius X’s Motu Proprio Oath Against Modernization.  This is an issue best left to canon lawyers, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals…

It bears repeating that on September 8, 1907, Pope Saint Pius X did not mince words when he wrote Pascendi Dominici Gregis about Catholic modernists:     

“We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.”  [Paragraph 2]

“But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion (sic) between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.”  [Paragraph 4]

“To proceed in an orderly manner in this recondite subject, it must first of all be noted that every Modernist sustains and comprises within himself many personalities; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer.  These roles must be clearly distinguished from one another by all who would accurately know their system and thoroughly comprehend the principles and the consequences of their doctrines.” [Paragraph 5]   

Three years later, on September 10, 1910, Pope St. Pius X, followed up with Sacrorum antistitum, a comprehensive Motu Proprio Oath Against Modernism, to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.  

Interestingly, Sacrorum antistitum is available on the Vatican website in Latin only.  You have to look elsewhere for an online English translation.  An English print translation of “The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” can be found in Henry Denzinger’s renowned The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th edition, DS (paragraphs) 2145-2147.  You have to wonder whether the modernists are trying to hide this oath.  The Denzinger translation is substantially as follows:  

“I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.  

“Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.  

“Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.  

“I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .”  [Denzinger, 30th edition, DS 2145-2147]

The first part of the comprehensive Oath Against Modernism is a strong affirmation of the principal Catholic truths opposed to Modernism: the demonstrability of God’s existence by human reason, the value of miracles and prophecies as criteria of revelation, the historical institution of the Church founded by Christ, the invariable constancy of the essentials of Catholic tradition, and the reasonableness and supernaturality of the Christian faith. The second part of the oath is an expression of interior assent to the decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  Particular modernist errors were singled out for censure and rejection.  The oath closes with a declaration by the oath taker that he or she is completely opposed to the error of the modernists.  

On July 17, 1967, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replaced Pope Saint Pius X’s comprehensive Oath Against Modernism with a tepid Profession of the Faith.  The text of the tepid Profession of Faith is substantially as follows:  

“I, N., believe and profess with firm faith each and every truth which is contained in the Symbol of the faith, namely:

“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.  

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.  

“I also firmly accept and retain each and every truth regarding the doctrine of faith and morals, whether solemnly defined by the Church or asserted and declared with the ordinary Magisterium, as well as those doctrines proposed by the same Magisterium, above all those which regard the mystery of the Holy Church of Christ, the Sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.”  

Presumably, on July 17, 1967, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acted with the permission and blessing of Pope Paul VI.  

Arguably, the text of the July 17, 1967, Profession of Faith is not an oath against modernism.  The halfhearted Profession of Faith does not include a declaration by the oath taker that he or she is completely opposed to the error of the modernists.  

In effect the comprehensive September 10, 1910, Oath Against Modernism was replaced with a tepid Profession of Faith on July 17, 1967.  In effect the tepid Profession of Faith reopened the modernist floodgates on July 17, 1967.    

Arguably, replacement of the comprehensive 1910 Oath Against Modernization with the tepid 1967 Profession of Faith raises a collateral issue.   Did the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Profession of Faith abrogate (I.e., do away with) Pius X’s Motu Proprio Oath Against Modernization?  Can the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith abrogate a Motu Proprio papal document?  This smacks of modernist obfuscation.  This is an issue best left to canon lawyers, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals.  Moving on…

Today you have to wonder how many priests ordained after July 17, 1967, have even heard about the comprehensive 1910 Oath Against Modernization.  

Today’s ruckus – The modernists are here; the modernists have arrived – is not new.  The difference is that today’s ruckus has serious implications.  The difference is that today’s ruckus has discernible common threads: HISTORY MAY WELL SHOW either that Pope Francis lost the papacy and spiritual charism by virtue of his scandalous modernist activity and scandalous papal documents or that Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio’s (Pope Francis) election pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis was invalid. 

More importantly, buried in the ruckus are questions about how we got to this point.  Arguably, it all started July 17, 1967, when the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replaced the Oath against Modernism first published on September 10, 1910.  

The July 17, 1967, Pope Paul VI’s replacement of the 1910 Sacrorum antistitum Oath against Modernism reopened the modernist floodgate – and is a date that will live in modernist infamy…  

Less than two years later the traditional Latin Mass was effectively replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae.  On April 3, 1969, Pope Paul VI issued Missale Romanum, Apostolic Constitution on New Roman Missal.  The traditional Latin Mass was effectively replaced by the addition of three new canons for the Mass and the modification of the ritual.  Recall that Pope Paul VI had previously authorized the use of the vernacular language “even in the Canon of the Mass.”  [Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, definition of Missale Romanum, page 354]

On September 5, 1969, Cardinals Alfredo Ottavani and Antonio Bacci presented Pope Paul VI with a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (known as the Ottavani Intervention) that essentially went unanswered.  

The Ottavani Intervention was a June 5, 1969, Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass written by twelve Roman Catholic theologians who worked under the direction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci sent the critical study to Pope Paul VI with a cover letter dated 25 September 1969. The study cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI’s April 3, 1969 Missale Romanum.  

Shortly thereafter, on August 15, 1972, Pope Paul VI published Ministeria Quaedam – a Motu Proprio Apostolic Letter, On First Tonsure, Minor Orders, and the Subdiaconate.  Ministeria Quaedam effectively suppressed tonsure, minor orders, and the subdiaconate in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church effective January 1, 1973.  [Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, definition of Ministeria Quaedam, page 351]

Among other things, in reopening the modernist floodgate Pope Paul VI single-handedly (i.e., on his own accord) suppressed the traditional Latin mass and replaced it with the vernacular Novus Ordo mass.   

The traditional Latin mass is quietly fading into history and it makes you wonder whether the Latin mass will eventually be replaced by the Tango mass.  That being said, sacrilege and scandal are subjects unto themselves.  

It bears repeating:  The issue is not removal of the pope, sedevacantism, schism, or the indefectibility of the Church.  The primary issue is fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15-18) of scandalous Catholic modernists.  To what end fraternal correction?  Preferably healing and return of the prodigal sons to the Catholic Church – else excommunication. 
[17 March 2017 Revision by Author]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally published in The Remnant.

This is the second in a series of essays by John J. Arechiga, another will be posted tomorrow

Gospel and Law according to Ratzinger

Recently, a prominent Italian Rabbi, Giuseppe Laras, criticized Pope Francis’s homilies for their “resumption of the old polarization between the morality and theology of the Hebrew Bible and of pharisaism, and Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels.”

Decades ago, Joseph Ratzinger wrote a chapter titled, “Israel, the Church, and the World,” from his short study, Many Religions – One Covenant (1998). He argued there: “Jesus did not act as a liberal reformer recommending and presenting a more understanding interpretation of the Law. In Jesus’ exchange with the Jewish authorities of his time, we are not dealing with a confrontation between a liberal reformer and an ossified traditionalist hierarchy. Such a view, though common, fundamentally misunderstands the conflict of the New Testament and does justice neither to Jesus nor to Israel.”

This view of the relationship between the Gospel and the Law of Israel sounds familiar because Rabbi Laras is right: it is a steady drumbeat in Pope Francis’ homilies.

I have already written here about Francis’s oppositional interpretation of the Gospel and the Law. I won’t repeat what I’ve said. Rather, I want to discuss Cardinal Ratzinger’s reasons for rejecting such a “crass contrast” between the Gospel and the Law.

Ratzinger characterizes this contrast as a “cliché in modern and liberal descriptions where Pharisees and priests are portrayed as the representatives of a hardened legalism, as representatives of the eternal law of the establishment presided over by religious and political authorities who hinder freedom and live from the oppression of others. . . .In light of these interpretations, one sides with Jesus, fights his fight, by coming out against the power of priests in the Church.”

Why does Ratzinger hold that this contrast fundamentally misconstrues the New Testament understanding of the relationship between the Gospel and the Law, and hence fails to do justice to Jesus and Israel?

The key Biblical principle that helps Ratzinger plumb the theological depth of the relationship between the Gospel and the Law is expressed in the words of Jesus: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mt 5:17) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 577-582) functions as the interpretive lens through which Ratzinger understands the words of Jesus. That the Law is fulfilled in Christ does not mean that the Gospel has no further relation to the Law. The moral Law remains God’s will for the life of the Christian. How so?

Jesus fulfills the Law by bringing out its fullest and complete meaning. He also fulfills it by bringing the finishing or capstone revelation. He radicalizes the Law’s demands by going to its heart and center. In Matthew 22:40, Jesus says, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus neither replaces nor adds to the moral teachings of the Law, but rather he exposes its true and positive, indeed, fullest meaning in light of the twofold yet single, central Commandment: that we love God completely and love our neighbor as ourselves. (Mt 7:12; 22:34-40; Mk 12:38-43; Lk 10:25-28; Jn 13:34; Rom 13:8-10)

In that sense, Jesus interiorizes the demands of the Law because fulfillment of the Law must be measured by that central commandment to love. Because love of God and neighbor is the heart of the Law, Jesus shows that the commandments prohibiting murder and adultery mean more than the letter of the Law states. Jesus is not an ethical minimalist, a view that associates the Law with mere formality and externalism in morals, but rather an ethical maximalist. A maximalist – and Christ was a maximalist – refers to the dimension of interiority. (cf. Mt 5) Christ appeals to the inner man because “the Law is led to its fullness through the renewal of the heart.” (CCC, 1964)

Indeed, CCC teaches that the central Commandment to love expresses the “fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.” (1604). Ratzinger explains: “By saying Yes to the double commandment, man lives up to the call of his nature to be the image of God that was willed by the Creator and is realized as such in loving with the love of God.” The moral laws, whose core is the Ten Commandments, retain their direct and unchanging validity. Moreover, even these Commandments receive a new foundation in the Gospel. In short, “The Law of the Gospel ‘fulfills’, refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.” (CCC,1967)

Furthermore, Jesus’ perfect fulfillment of the Law includes his taking upon himself the “‘curse of the Law’ incurred by those who do not ‘abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them.’” (Gal 3:11) In this light, we can understand why CCC states that Jesus brings about “the perfect fulfillment of the Law by being the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.” (CCC 579)

Christ’s atonement is vicarious, that is, it is a substitutionary atonement. He was a substitute for others, taking their place by paying the penalty for their sins – sins that involved breaking the Law of God. When a law is broken, a punishment is incurred. That is, Jesus was made sin on our behalf so that he would satisfy God’s righteousness and hence we might become righteous. (2 Cor 5:21): “He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” (Rom 4:25) Mercy and justice meet at the Cross.

In sum, “Jesus did not abolish the Law of Sinai, but rather fulfilled it (cf. Mt 5:17-19) with such perfection (cf. Jn 8:46) that he revealed its ultimate meaning (cf. Mt 5:33) and redeemed the transgressions against it (cf. Heb 9:15).” (CCC, 592)

© 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Eduardo J. Echeverria

Eduardo J. Echeverria is Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit. His publications include Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II (2015) and Divine Election: A Catholic Orientation in Dogmatic and Ecumenical Perspective (2016).

THE CATHOLIC THING

SUNDAY, MARCH 19, 2017

A number of bishops have announced that Catholics in irregular unions whose consciences are “at peace” with God must be allowed to receive Holy Communion. This has never been the belief or practice of the Church, yet they assert it is rooted in the traditional teaching that conscience must be respected, even when mistaken. They fail to mention, however, that only the dictates of conscience are binding, not all its judgments, and that conscience is subject to the teaching and judgment of the Church. Once these truths are taken into account, the coherence of the Church’s apostolic practice stands out as clearly as the errors of the recent, unwarranted innovation.

In Catholic thought, conscience has two roles. First, it sometimes commands that a particular action be done or avoided. The action can be external or internal. Conscience has this authority naturally because it is an expression of practical reason, which comes from God. Although distorted by imperfection and error, the dictate must be obeyed because it is the echo of God’s voice. This is why our primary duty in life is to form conscience according to the truth and to obey its commands regardless of any earthly authority.

The second role of conscience is judging past, present, or hypothetical actions. This might be called our “sense of morality.” It judges, for example, whether certain acts are right or wrong, better or worse, or permissible, but without commanding a present action. At times it lacks clarity or certitude. As a judgment of reason, it cannot be equated with feelings or opinions. Unless joined in a particular instance to a dictate for action, these judgments can and must yield to commands from legitimate authorities.

We obey the dictate of conscience because we must, not because it is correct. In that moment, it is all we have to guide us. Afterward, the judgment of conscience may reassess our actions or previous judgments in light of a better understanding of the truth. It might even reveal that we were culpable about an erroneous dictate rooted in an ill-formed conscience. Thus, the two roles are distinct, but inseparable.

It is crucial to recognize that conscience, like the related human capacities of reason and will, has been created for a purpose: to enable us to respond and to commit ourselves to God, others, and creation. As such, conscience engages the entire human person, expressing an on-going dialogue that shapes our relationships and who we become. It has eternal significance.

This means that conscience, both in its dictates and its judgments, is personal and communal, not “private” in an autonomous or subjectivist sense. No one stands as an isolated individual before God in conscience because everyone exists in a myriad of relations with others. This includes a relation to Christ and the Church, who intercede and collaborate with the Holy Spirit to draw every person to share life with God. Christians, of course, stand as members of Christ and his Church.

These truths about conscience present a dilemma. The fallible dictates of conscience must be followed in response to God for the sake of ourselves, others, and the world. We do not want, deliberately or innocently, to act or to judge incorrectly because of the harm this would do. Nevertheless, we know that through innumerable and unrecognized influences – including sin –we suffer from defects and errors that distort our perceptions and judgments. Who, then, can trust himself, alone, to judge morality and circumstances accurately, especially when these involve vested interests (e.g., the validity of a marriage)?

It was precisely to enlighten and strengthen conscience that Jesus proclaimed the Gospel and drew humanity to himself as members of his Church, establishing her pastoral office and infallible Magisterium. The Church, like her Spouse, does not replace or coerce conscience, but with Him serves conscience by teaching, correcting, healing, and, when needed, rebuking. That is the entire mission of Christ and the Church, since in conscience we acknowledge sin, receive the Gospel, and live as children of God. Thus, it would be a betrayal of Christ to suggest that conscience, as dictate or judgment, lies outside the Church and her judgment.

Recognizing her apostolic duty, the Church has undertaken to declare consciences wrong when they violate the Gospel and has applied various pastoral remedies to bring her members to alter mistaken beliefs and practices. Her motive is simple: Jesus came to free everyone to share his joy by living God’s truth in love, even those burdened and imprisoned by innocent errors.

Consequently, the Church has never limited herself to helping the faithful discern whether their conscience is “at peace with God,” as some have recently claimed, insisting instead that Catholics are bound in conscience to accept and to live the Gospel as taught by the Church. Otherwise, no one in good conscience could ever have been refused Holy Communion, even if their beliefs and behaviors were damaging to themselves and others.

Contrary to recent innovations, the Church has consistently taught that a judgment of conscience cannot appeal to “the greater good” to justify evil actions, such as targeting civilians during war, contraception, or sexual relations outside a valid marriage. Those making such appeals must set aside the fallible judgment of their conscience in favor of the Gospel proclaimed by the Church. Of course, they must obey their conscience if it erroneously commands the action. The Church, however, can still seek to dissuade and correct them, even withholding Holy Communion, in order to lead them and others from harmful behaviors to healthy ones. This in no way judges their personal culpability or denies them access to God’s grace.

The Church must judge consciences and confront error and evil, culpable or not. We know the tragedies that have unfolded when bishops and clergy set aside Catholic teaching and discipline in their lives and in the Church. That some pastors have mandated a repetition of this mistake is disheartening. That genuine pastoral care continues nevertheless is a source of solace and hope.

© 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently pastor of parishes in Gatesville and Hamilton. His doctoral studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.