Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[tonyrey]

A word of caution. We are never to act against our own conscience, even if someone else tells us it’s not what God wants, since that would be the ultimate “I was only following orders” excuse. In other words, how can we know what God wants except through our God-given conscience? Why else did He give it?

We need to be informed so we can decide what we believe is right, but blindly enslaving ourselves to someone else’s dictat of what God requires of us would be the most extreme form of idolization - that’s how some of those wicked cults get started.

Precisely!

 

[davidv]

Adam crucified Jesus? Time-delayed nails?

I would say yes, in a very figurative way. As all of our current and future sins contributed to His agony.

 

[grannymh]

Adam crucified Jesus? Time-delayed nails?

Actually, when I mentioned Adam, I was thinking about what happened in the first three chapters of Genesis. Mine is an additional approach to one human being worthy of redemption. Therefore, I will expand my own reaction to the idea of Jesus redeeming one person in a different post so that there will be no confusion.

If I don’t make it back here, and the thread closes, readers are welcomed to read the first three chapters of Genesis. Also, CCC 355 - 421 can be very enlightening.

 

[tonyrey]

If the mother’s life is at stake and she has other children she is entitled to allow her unborn to die because it is the lesser of two evils.

Efforts to save her life may entail surgery, the use of drugs or non-intervention - none of which is a direct abortion.

We have the right to allow a person to die if it is the lesser evil.

We are not allowed to use an evil means, even in order to achieve a good end.

So you wouldn’t lie or steal to save a person’s life?

Non sequitur.

I’m not so sure of that.

I am certain

There are some statements being made that deeply trouble me and that I would like to explore more fully, although I think we’re veering way off topic. However, this is so important that I think we should either continue with the current direction of this thread or agree to discuss this in a new thread.

Whichever you prefer.

The Church teaches that our conscience is our ultimate authority…

Please provide Church teaching to back up this claim.

"Then came Vatican II, which brought to the fore front the issue of conscience and its vital role in our search for truth. The document on the Church in the Modern World stated clearly the important role of conscience in the life of the Christian:

“Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. There they are alone with God whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.”

Commenting on paragraph #16 of the above document, theologian Fr. Joseph Razinger (now** Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in 1968:**

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

There are very tragic cases where the distinction between allowing a person to die and killing a person becomes arbitrary and legalistic. In both cases we are fully aware of the end result and directly responsible for the means by which it is achieved.

Who is fully aware? Fully? The only Being Who is fully aware is God, by His omniscience. Methinks some people are trying to place themselves above God.

Argumentum ad hominem. It remains an indisputable fact that when one **deliberately **allows a person to die or kills a person one is fully aware of the end result and directly responsible for the means by which it is achieved.

 

[StAnastasia]

I would say yes, in a very figurative way. As all of our current and future sins contributed to His agony.

David, that’s amazing. Can you explain to me how that works? How can a future sin contribute to past agony?

 

[tonyrey]

I did before posting #464. Doesn’t change a word I or the CCC says. “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself”.

On that score you are in excellent company - that of Pope Benedict!

 

[grannymh]

On that score you are in excellent company - that of Pope Benedict!

I bet Pope Benedict reads the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs. No quote mining for that Catholic.

 

[tonyrey]

I bet Pope Benedict reads the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs. No quote mining for that Catholic.

If our conscience is not our ultimate authority in this life please explain why Pope Benedict wrote:

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

Do you accept or reject his statement?

 

[shoe]

David, that’s amazing. Can you explain to me how that works? How can a future sin contribute to past agony?

Since God exists outside of time, all eternity exists before Him as a single, undivided entity; that is to say, all the events that Moses wrote about in Genesis are as present to God as the future events that John wrote about in the Book of Revelation, as well as all the events in between. To God, the future is a present reality. From God’s instant point of view, then, He would instantly see Jesus as the “the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world”(Revelation 13:8), paying not only for all our past and present sins but also for all our future sins.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I bet Pope Benedict reads the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs. No quote mining for that Catholic.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Efforts to save her life may entail surgery, the use of drugs or non-intervention - none of which is a direct abortion.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what point you are attempting to make here. I never said that surgery or the use of drugs constitutes a direct abortion (although I will state that non-intervention (by which I assume you mean not attempting to save the unborn child) may constitute a direct abortion; I am not sure of this and will research this in order to discover what the Church teaches). What you have written has nothing to do with the “lesser of two evils.”

You also did not provide Church teaching as requested.

Argumentum ad hominem.

It is not an argumentum ad hominem. I did not insult you personally and so I could not have possibly attacked your argument using said insult.

It remains an indisputable fact that when one **deliberately **allows a person to die or kills a person one is fully aware of the end result and directly responsible for the means by which it is achieved.

I dispute your claim that it remains an indisputable fact. I also do not accept that it has ever been an indisputable fact or that it will ever become an indisputable fact. If it were an indisputable fact every single person who deliberately allows a person to die or kills a person is fully aware of the end result and directly responsible for the means by which it is achieved, then every person who did so would have to be omniscient. There are far too many factors involved in allowing a person to die or in killing a person for any fallible human being to be aware of all of them; many factors can be known only to God. Many factors can only be known in an eternal and/or divine sense. Many factors are simply not available to human beings and that is why God is the only perfect judge.

The same holds true regarding a person being directly responsible for the means by which the allowing of a person to die or the killing of a person is accomplished. There are factors of which only an omniscient Being can be aware.

However, I do admit that my comment about people attempting to place themselves above God was poorly worded. That comment should be changed to the following:

“Methinks some people are trying to place themselves at the level of or above God.”

---

I will have to respond to the rest of your post later due to time and space constraints.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I bet Pope Benedict reads the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs. No quote mining for that Catholic.

If our conscience is not our ultimate authority in this life please explain why Pope Benedict wrote:

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

Do you accept or reject his statement?

I do hope you will accept the fact that as a former journalist (before Google)
I do not blindly respond to an “accept or reject” question regarding a single sentence…

…without knowing context, valid citation, audience, issue, specifics of “the binding claim”, status of ecclesiastical authority, the necessity of “necessary”, description of conscience formation, if a Catholic doctrine is involved, motivation, if there is a reference to a previous time of heresy such as the period of the Council of Trent and/or the early centuries of the Catholic Church, et cetera.

The questions which need to be answered are those of a journalist–who? how? what? when? where? why? and cost.

Because Pope Benedict spends time formulating his public thoughts, it is only fair to listen to the whole story.

 

[tonyrey]

If our conscience is not our ultimate authority in this life please explain why Pope Benedict wrote:

"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.

I leave others to draw their own conclusions…

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

 

[LittleSoldier]

So you wouldn’t lie or steal to save a person’s life?

Of course I wouldn’t!

I am certain.

Fortunately you don’t get to decide whether it is or not.

Whichever you prefer.

I will wait for (name removed by moderator)ut from other posters.

"Then came Vatican II, which brought to the fore front the issue of conscience and its vital role in our search for truth. The document on the Church in the Modern World stated clearly the important role of conscience in the life of the Christian:

“Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. There they are alone with God whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.”

Commenting on paragraph #16 of the above document, theologian Fr. Joseph Razinger (now** Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in 1968:**

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

Thank you for the link. That is a very good article! I’m going to keep the site address for future reference. I hope that everyone reads the entire article for context and complete information.

From the article whose link you posted:

Over the years, moral theologians have distinguished several types of conscience.*

A true or correct Catholic conscience is one that has made a sincere effort to discover the truth and one that acts in accordance with the Word of God and the teachings of the church.

An erroneous conscience is one that is contrary to God’s Word and the teachings of the church. One may have an erroneous conscience and not know it. For example, a couple may think that their marriage is recognized by the church when in fact it is not. A couple may think that “living together” prior to marriage is morally correct when in fact it is contrary to the teaching of the church.

A bad conscience is one that hasn’t even inquired about what is right or wrong. It is a conscience that has no regard for objective truth.

An informed conscience is one that has sought to inform and educate itself about a particular moral issue. For Catholics informing one’s conscience will always involve a prayerful reflection on what scripture and the official teaching of the church has to say on a particular issue.

Should We Always Follow our Conscience?

It depends. The answer is ‘no’ if we are speaking about an uninformed conscience. The answer is ‘yes’ if we are speaking about an informed or educated conscience. For a Catholic, conscience is formed by scripture, the Church’s magesterium and prayerful reflection on one’s experience.

The Primacy of Conscience

“He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” (Fourth Lateran council, 1215)
“It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one’s conscience.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

“I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” (Cardinal John Henry Newman)

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” (Human Life in Our Day, U.S. Bishops Pastoral)

“A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it he would condemn himself.” Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790)

“We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.)

*I listed only those types of consciences that I believe are relevant to this thread.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Fr. Kenneth Overberg S.J. writes:

Conscientious Catholics take Church teachings very seriously. They recognize the danger of being blinded by the emotions of the moment; they acknowledge the possibility of failing to recognize the good of the whole out of a more narrow self-interest. They see Church teaching as one important antidote to these dangers. And **they embrace that authority **as one way of discovering the best and highest good for self and for others.

We North Americans have been raised in a culture which emphasizes individualism and fosters an abiding suspicion of authority. Catholicism’s respect for Church teaching, therefore, can be especially challenging for us. But I believe that welcoming the guidance of authority is still a necessary counterbalance for understanding our Catholic emphasis on the sanctity of conscience.

Every Catholic has an obligation to do everything possible to develop and form his/her conscience according to the teachings of Christ and his Church.

"Become informed about the teachings of Christ and our church. Our two primary sources should be the New Testament and the Catechism of the Church.

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

It would be wonderful if all of us could fully embrace all the teachings of Christ and his church-the teachings on loving our enemy, on caring for the poor, on justice and sexuality issues, etc. But reality is that sometimes most, if not all, of us can only give an imperfect response to the teachings of Christ and his church. In all this it is important that we do not allow our imperfect response to become the new norm or ideal for future behavior and moral decision-making. The good and sincere catholic always keeps the values of the gospel and the teachings of the church as the ideals which he/she seeks to embrace even if we fall short of keeping them again and again. In other words, we should not set for ourselves moral norms and ideals that are less than those proposed by the Gospel and the church.​

I’m not quite sure how we ended up in some sort of argument about whether we should accept Church teaching. Of course we have consciences and they are given to us by God, in love, in order to help us understand the difference between right and wrong. God also gave us, in love, His Church with her teaching authority - the Magisterium. Even a Pope is not the Magisterium and is not infallible except on matters of faith and morals, speaking ex cathedra.

The quotes regarding conscience that I have provided show how important conscience is. However, it is a well-formed conscience that we must seek. In order to have a well-formed conscience we must give Church teaching the extreme authority it deserves.

What this has to do with “lesser of two evils” is beyond me at this point.

This is my third attempt to post this. We are in the middle of a huge storm and had four brownouts in 20 seconds. I have to shut my computer down. But I want to post this. I apologize for such a sloppy post. It is not my full response.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I leave others to draw their own conclusions…

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

My conclusion is that it is only fair to listen to the ***WHOLE ***story and that it is rather uncharitable to request that one accept or reject one paragraph taken from a much larger source.

And with that I must bid you goodbye until this storm lets up.

 

[tonyrey]

-----continuation of last post-----

Fr. Kenneth Overberg S.J. writes:

Conscientious Catholics take Church teachings very seriously. They recognize the danger of being blinded by the emotions of the moment; they acknowledge the possibility of failing to recognize the good of the whole out of a more narrow self-interest. They see Church teaching as one important antidote to these dangers. And **they embrace that authority **as one way of discovering the best and highest good for self and for others.

We North Americans have been raised in a culture which emphasizes individualism and fosters an abiding suspicion of authority. Catholicism’s respect for Church teaching, therefore, can be especially challenging for us. But I believe that welcoming the guidance of authority is still a necessary counterbalance for understanding our Catholic emphasis on the sanctity of conscience.

Every Catholic has an obligation to do everything possible to develop and form his/her conscience according to the teachings of Christ and his Church.

"Become informed about the teachings of Christ and our church. Our two primary sources should be the New Testament and the Catechism of the Church.

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

It would be wonderful if all of us could fully embrace all the teachings of Christ and his church-the teachings on loving our enemy, on caring for the poor, on justice and sexuality issues, etc. But reality is that sometimes most, if not all, of us can only give an imperfect response to the teachings of Christ and his church. In all this it is important that we do not allow our imperfect response to become the new norm or ideal for future behavior and moral decision-making. The good and sincere catholic always keeps the values of the gospel and the teachings of the church as the ideals which he/she seeks to embrace even if we fall short of keeping them again and again. In other words, we should not set for ourselves moral norms and ideals that are less than those proposed by the Gospel and the church.​

I’m not quite sure how we ended up in some sort of argument about whether we should accept Church teaching. Of course we have consciences and they are given to us by God, in love, in order to help us understand the difference between right and wrong. God also gave us, in love, His Church with her teaching authority - the Magisterium. Even a Pope is not the Magisterium and is not infallible except on matters of faith and morals, speaking ex cathedra.

The quotes regarding conscience that I have provided show how important conscience is. However, it is a well-formed conscience that we must seek. In order to have a well-formed conscience we must give Church teaching the extreme authority it deserves.

What this has to do with “lesser of two evils” is beyond me at this point.

This is my third attempt to post this. We are in the middle of a huge storm and had four brownouts in 20 seconds. I have to shut my computer down. But I want to post this. I apologize for such a sloppy post. It is not my full response.

Who decides whether a person’s conscience is well-formed when that person has made every effort to reach the right conclusion and is absolutely convinced it is evil to allow some one to be killed rather than tell a lie?

 

[tonyrey]

It is not an argumentum ad hominem. I did not insult you personally and so I could not have possibly attacked your argument using said insult.

An argumentum ad hominem need not be an insult. It is the fallacy of referring to a person instead of addressing the issue.

 

[grannymh]

Hopefully, readers understand that the Catholic term of “conscience” implies an informed or educated conscience. This is a different conscience from the kind of subjective conscience which some, not all, humans use to place their intelligence above the Creator’s.

In Catholic terminology, “conscience” refers to an informed conscience which comes about by the use of the spiritual soul’s powers of intellect and will in accord with Divine Revelation taught by the Catholic Church with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Gospel of John, Chapter 14)

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[inocente]

Please then read the following, which includes the part of CCC 1790 you omitted, and noting especially what is underlined and/or bolded (which I added for emphasis):

I wrote my scenario in post #464 to ensure you were not in ignorance, you had not rejected the Church, and so on, so I only needed to quote what I did. Perhaps rather than quoting the CCC again, could you explain in your own words why you think it is remotely possible to override any part of “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself"?