VIDEO: Wherein Card Arinze explains “conscience”

The mighty Francis Card. Arinze gave a video interview to LifeSite.  He reminds everyone of what real primacy of conscience is in the Church’s teaching.  He clarifies that we have the responsibility to have a properly formed conscience.

We cannot simply claim “conscience” as justification for sin.

He speaks of the responsibility of bishops and priests to form people’s consciences properly.

He explains (perhaps to Synod members along with everyone else) what “adultery” is.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. KingofCharity says:

    Beautiful! Love the precision and clarity. We need more of this coming out of Rome.
    Cupich was spewing heresy when discussing the “inviolable” nature of conscience. He, like other progressives, thinks conscience is like the legislative branch of government- meaning that conscience in essence “makes the laws” or defines what is or isn’t objective truth for that person. In other words, Cupich equates primacy of conscience with moral relativism. Rather, conscience is more like the judiciary branch- it is supposed to weigh and measure a circumstance in relationship to predetermined laws AFTER it has been trained, formed, and educated in objective truth. Likewise, conscience is only a “judge” of pre-existing laws that come from Divine Revelation, natural law, and God’s Holy Church. Cupich failed to articulate the Church’s teaching on conscience, it was an embarrassment to read his comments. It is that kind of heretical spew that confuses people and could ultimately risk putting people’s souls at risk of hell. It IS the Church’s (bishops and priests) job to make very clear the laws that govern worthy and moral reception of the Eucharist. It is the job of individual conscience to decide whether or not one’s moral life meets those laws and requirements. Very simple. It is not the job of personal conscience to decide whether or not it is moral or immoral to receive the Eucharist.
    Also, what about the “inviolable” conscience of the priests? Isn’t it their right, in good conscience, to safeguard the Eucharist and also prevent someone who is basking in mortal sin from receiving Communion and bringing damnation upon oneself?

  2. TNCath says:

    Thank you, Cardinal Arinze! Too bad you weren’t invited to the “party” these past two weeks.

  3. danidunn says:

    It is quite amazing, at least to me, that somebody who’s conscience told him it was a good idea for him to get married and then divorced and then re-married is now capable of determining for himself that he is allowed to receive communion. It is, of course, possible that somebody’s conscience can develop as he ages, but that conscience, if properly formed would determine just the opposite.

    The issue of communion for the “re-married” goes much deeper than compassion for those who sinned and are now in an untenable situation. St. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, makes it quite clear than marriage between a man and a woman is analogous to the relationship between Christ and His Church.

    That is why a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Yes, those words are a high mystery, and I am applying them here to Christ and his Church.

    Marriage is being attacked from within the Church and from without. If marriage is destroyed, then the assumption is that the Church will be destroyed. We must stand firm in the defense of marriage.

  4. optiksguy says:

    ++ Arinze is great. It always makes me smile to listen to him.

  5. Cantor says:

    Cardinal Arinze does a magnificent job of explaining the realities.

    The problem I see with his story is that this same hospital has other doctors who will do what the patient demands. It is these doctor/priests who need to be reeducated or asked to find a different hospital in which they can behave recklessly.

  6. DonL says:

    Conscience is not to be the filter through which God’s truth flows, but the inverse is correct –that God’s truth is the filter through which conscience is purified, that it may serve both man and God.

Comments are closed.