Australian "Catholics" seek CDF clarification on Cardinal’s comments

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has been asked to clarify the legitimacy of Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell’s publicly stated views on the importance of individual conscience in moral decision-making.

A group of Catholics claims that the Cardinal’s denial of the priority given to conscience places his views outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine.

Members assert that, based on The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Cardinal’s “explication of Catholic doctrine is inaccurate, misleading and not true to the Catholic tradition”.

Frustration at the lack of accountability within the Church hierarchy triggered a letter, signed by 25 Catholics, to the CDF’s Prefect, American Archbishop William Levada, in November 2005, seeking clarification. Three months later, there has been no acknowledgement of the letter, let alone a response. The CDF is the Vatican department that deals with orthodox doctrine. Its previous head was the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Lead signatory to the letter Mr Frank Purcell said that a number the Cardinal’s public statements on the primacy of conscience, over a number of years and given standing in the media, were difficult to reconcile with the teaching of the Church.

“Given his prominence in the Church, many Australians take his view as normative and representative of Catholic doctrine,” Mr Purcell said. The letter asks the CDF to request Cardinal Pell to confine his comments “to the excellent statement on conscience found The Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

It continues: “Here it is clearly stated that 'Man has the right to act in conscience and freedom so as personally to make moral decisions... especially in religious matters' (paragraph 1782). The Catechism certainly emphasizes the importance of the formation of a right conscience, but it insists that 'a human being must always obey the certain judgement of his conscience'. The same paragraph (1790) goes on to admit that moral conscience can 'remain in ignorance' and make 'erroneous judgements'. Nevertheless Catholics must still follow their conscience. The Catechism approvingly quotes Cardinal John Henry Newman's dictum that 'Conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ' (1778)".

The letter continues: “Our problem with his public stance is that he constantly places personal conscience and truth as taught by the church in opposition to each other, and thus distorts the role of both in Catholic tradition. By caricaturing any claim to the primacy of conscience as a rejection of the church's teaching, he sets up a false dichotomy and this results in a rejection of the legitimate role of informed conscience. In his public statements he emphasizes the teaching of the church, but fails to acknowledge that this does not completely exhaust the process. Truth must be assimilated into individual lives. He adopts the stance that any doubt or conscientious questioning is tantamount to rejecting the magisterium. He seems to adopt an entirely static notion of truth, and omits all reference to church tradition as a process of coming to truth.

“We believe that the authentic Catholic tradition is that conscience holds primacy in the process of moral decision-making. Certainly we accept that Catholics are bound to take biblical and church teaching as a central and integral element in moral discernment, but that in the end conscience is the ultimate norm of each person's moral action.”

Mr Purcell said the letter was not an attack on the Cardinal but a seeking of clarification on the importance of individual conscience in moral decision-making. Nor was the group demanding a hurried answer from the CDF, but simply an acknowledgement of the letter.

“The group only decided to go public because of the wide dissemination of Cardinal Pell's views and the apparent failure of the Vatican to respond to the letter. No modern bureaucracy fails to acknowledge receipt of correspondence. It is a matter of courtesy and respect,” Mr Purcell said.

Those who signed the letter are:
Sr Veronica Brady, IBVM, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Western Australia.
Emeritus Professor Max Charlesworth, parent, Professor of Philosophy, Deakin University.
Paul Collins, historian and broadcaster.
Rev. Fr Michael Elligate, Chaplain, University of Melbourne.
Judge Chris Geraghty, the District Court of New South Wales.
Marilyn Hatton, parent, adult educator.
John Hill, parent, clinical therapist, marriage and relationship counsellor.
Rev. Fr Eric Hodgens, Parish Priest, Archdiocese of Melbourne.
Helen Jagoe, parent, former General Secretary, International YCW. Re.
Fr James Littleton, MSC, educator.
Kathleen McPherson, parent, Community Health Services.
Mark McPherson, parent, Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Consultant, former YCW full-time worker.
Rev. Fr Frank Martin, Parish Priest, Archdiocese of Melbourne.
Sr Cecilia Merrigan, CSB, former International Congregational Leader, Sisters of Saint Brigid.
Rev. Fr Peter Murnane, OP, Dominican Friar, preacher.
Dr Anne O'Brien, psychologist, adult educator.
Emeritus Professor Tom O'Donnell, Foundation Chair of the Catholic Education Commission, Victoria, former member of the National Catholic Education Commission.
Frank Purcell, parent, lecturer in Politics, La Trobe University.
Bernard Ryan, parent, religious educator, Catholic high school.
Ellen Smiddy, parent, community worker, former YCW leader.
Brian Smiddy, parent, former YCW leader, trade union official.
Mary Stanwix, parent and pharmacist.
Justin Stanwix, parent and barrister.
Kevin Walcot, adult educator.
_______________________
I received this in an email update from "Online Catholics", an Australian "Catholic" periodical comprised primarily of numerous dissenting views and attempts to justify its dissent - much like an Australian National Catholic Distorter.

Many people, in trying to escape the demands of the Gospel and the Church, make an unsupportable appeal to "primacy of conscience", many times, disregarding the fact that a conscience must also be rightly formed and well-informed. If one's conscience is rightly or well formed and well-informed, it would not be at odds with Church teaching.

A Catholic must also see that his conscience is formed in conformity with the teachings of the Church. While one has a right not to be compelled to act against his will or conscience, it must be understood that one's conscience is not the arbiter of truth and a faithful Catholic will do all he can to try and understand the Church's teaching, and, in properly forming his conscience, he will be completely willing to submit to the Church's authority in the matter.

Many, still yet, in selectively quoting the Catechism, Cardinal Newman, or other Church documents, do so by failing to accept or take in the fullness of what the Church teaches or what the author intends. Some, for example, selectively call upon part of Gaudium et Spes:

...it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity.

while disregarding the remainder of the text:

This cannot be said of the man who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded by the habit of committing sin. (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 7 December 1965, n. 16.)

As I cannot do justice to this subject here, please review this excellent article on the Role and Freedom of Conscience.

It will be interesting to see what response, if any, this group receives. I think that these people will not be happy with the answer they may receive.