Symposium on the 2015 Synod on the Family Conscience and the Synod: An Evolving Quaestio Disputata James T. Bretzke, S.J. ERTAINLY UNDER THE FRANCIS PAPACY our Roman teapot is filled to the brim with leaves clamoring to be read and deciphered—too many in fact for even a cursory overview. C Instead I would like to articulate one hypothesis and then probe it by looking at just a couple of the tea-leaves that have collected around contrasting views on the relationship of conscience and Church teaching. First the hypothesis: I believe that a helpful way to read the tea- leaves is by considering them in terms of a major cultural paradigm shift taking place in the Church.1 This shift began with the run-up to Vatican II and we’ve been witnessing something of a protracted tug- of-war ever since. Clearly in the Franciscan papacy the energy has again shifted and this in turn has occasioned a considerable amount of push-back from forces that once enjoyed great influence in the previ- ous two pontificates. One core tension revolves around various understandings of con- science, and especially in connection to its relationship to the Church’s magisterium. For example, in the Instrumentum laboris for the Octo- ber 2015 Synod, the paragraphs on conscience, especially no. 137, came in for considerable critical attention before the Synod opened. The problematic paragraph suggested that couples “under the regular guidance of a competent spiritual guide… [could] make choices which are humanly fulfilling and ones which conform to God’s will” and that these might strike a balance between the “objective moral norm which does not permit considering the act of generation a reality to be de- 1 For a fuller treatment of this paradigm shift in the papacy of Pope Francis, see James T. Bretzke, S.J., “The Francis Effect on the Munus Docendi and Gubernandi of the Church,” Horizons 42, no. 2 (December 2015): 368-403; and “Re-reading the Roman Tea-leaves: The Francis Effect on the Synods on the Family in the Jubilee Year of Mercy,” www.bc.edu/schools/stm/ed events/CampusEvents/PastLectures/2015/11-4- 2015.html. 168 James T. Bretzke, S.J. cided arbitrarily” and seeing that “moral norm as an insupportable bur- den and unresponsive to a person’s needs and resources.” 2 The possi- bility of a married couple discerning a choice that might not be in full objective material conformity with Humanae vitae no. 14 certainly raised more than a few ecclesial eyebrows.3 In discussion during the circuli minores some Relatios called for it to be dropped entirely or modified extensively.4 However, instead of disappearing, conscience more than doubled its appearance in the 2015 Synod Final Report (FR), going from three to seven instances. Of particular note are three instances on Generative Responsibility which actually seem to expand the treatment in the In- strumentum laboris, no. 137: The choice of responsible parenthood presupposes the formation of conscience, which is “the most secret core and sanctuary of a person. There each one is alone with God, whose voice echoes in the depths of the heart” (Gaudium et spes, 16). The more the couple tries to listen in their conscience to God and his commandments (cf. Rom 2:15), and are accompanied spiritually, the more their decision will be inti- mately free from a subjective arbitrariness and the adaptation to peo- ple’s conduct where they live. For the sake of this dignity of con- science, the Church strongly rejects the forced State intervention in favour of contraception, sterilization and even abortion.5 [emphasis added] The final two occurrences come in one of the three most disputed pas- sages of the FR, namely in no. 85, which mustered the two-thirds ma- jority by a single vote and included some, but not all, of a similar par- agraph in Pope John Paul II’s 1981 Familiaris consortio (no. 84). No doubt the sentence in FR no. 85 which caused the most consternation vis-à-vis conscience is the following: Therefore, while supporting a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for 2 2015 Synod Instrumentum Laboris, no. 137, www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/ documents/rc_synod_doc_20150623_instrumentum-xiv-assembly_en.html. 3 See, for example, David S. Crawford and Stephan Kampowski, “An Appeal Re- calling the Teaching of Humanae Vitae (and Veritatis Splendor),” First Things (Sep- tember 9, 2015), www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/09/ which was endorsed by a considerable number of theologians and philosophers, including some consultors for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 4 See the summary of some of these Relatios offered by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register, www.ncregister.com/daily-news/reports-of-the-circoli-minori/. 5 2015 Synod Final Report, no. 63, www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/ rc_synod_doc_20151026_relazione-finale-xiv-assemblea_en.html. Conscience and the Synod 169 these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not nec- essarily the same in all cases. [emphasis added] While at this writing we are still awaiting the promised Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, the ecclesial teapot continues to bubble, and we note a number of contrasting views of “conscience” as articulated by various documents from the magisterium and interpretation by bishops and theologians. Among these I find the episcopal ping-pong between a suffragan bishop and his metropolitan particularly support- ive of my overall hypothesis on the paradigm shift regarding con- science. Bishop Thomas Paprocki expresses an opinion that the only “rightly-formed” conscience could be that in full alignment with Church teaching, and thus there could never be a valid instance of al- lowing an individual to “follow one’s conscience” if it seemed to de- viate with Church teaching. Paprocki articulates this position in re- sponse to his Metropolitan Archbishop Blase Cupich’s stated position that one must respect an individual’s decision made in conscience, even if that should seem to be in objective non-compliance with offi- cial Church teaching. While Bishop Paprocki does not directly contra- dict his Metropolitan, he does respond to a December 20, 2015 Letter to the Editor from John Freml who had referenced Archbishop Cupich’s position respecting conscience-based decisions of individu- als who may nevertheless be in irregular unions.6 In his response Bishop Paprocki takes issue with a number of Freml’s positions: First off, the Bishop states that genuine formation of a good conscience “means that they will recognize and repent of their sins, resolve to reform their lives in accord with Christ’s teach- ings and receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving Holy Communion.”7 Rather than turn to the Catechism, Conciliar documents such as Gaudium et spes and Thomas Aquinas, Paprocki builds his position on his interpretation of Canons 915 and 916. Speaking of Canon 916, His Excellency states: “According to the canon law of the Catholic Church, Canon 916 directs those “conscious of grave sin” to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Individuals must form their con- sciences in accord with Church teaching. Conscience assesses how a 6 For a report of Archbishop Cupich’s interview remarks on conscience published De- cember 20, 2015, see www.sj-r.com/article/20151220/OPINION/151229997/0/. 7 Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, “‘Conscience’ a complicated matter at Commun- ion,” The State Journal-Register (2015), www.sj-r.com/article/20151226/ OPIN- ION/151229763. Bishop Paprocki’s column, though, was given wide publication on the internet, often with titles such as this from ChurchMilitant.com: “Springfield Bishop Rebukes Chicago Abp. Blase Cupich & His False Notion of ‘Conscience’,” www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/springfield-bishop-rebukes-abp.-blase- cupich-his-notion-of-conscience.. 170 James T. Bretzke, S.J. person’s concrete action in a given situation accords with Church teaching—not to determine whether one agrees with or accepts Church teaching in the first place.”8 However, the actual text of Canon 916 itself leaves out Bishop Pap- rocki’s added proviso about the requirement that conscience be in con- formity with Church teaching.9 Building on his canonical interpreta- tion Bishop Paprocki indicates that in the external forum there should be no opportunity for someone in an irregular union from receiving Communion since Canon 915 excludes “those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’. In Catholic tradition, attempting marriage fol- lowing a civil divorce without a declaration of nullity and entering a ‘same-sex marriage’ are examples of the kind of gravely wrong public action that require ministers not to admit to Holy Communion those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ under Canon 915.”10 Similarly, as with Canon 916, Bishop Paprocki’s additional “rider” is not actually contained in the text itself, which reads in its entirety: “Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately per- severing in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Com- munion.” So to include all of those in irregular unions of whatever type would seem to involve a finding that they are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” and here we have a wrinkle that Bishop Pap- rocki himself seems to acknowledge since “Canon 915, however, in contrast with Canon 916, directs ministers of Holy Communion to withhold the Sacrament, not from ‘sinners’ per se (since no one can read the state of another person’s soul)….”11 In a quite similar vein Archdiocese of Detroit’s noted seminary Professor of Canon Law, Dr.