Blue,sorry if it has nothing to with AL,but it was this part of the " anamnesis" that made me sort of give up when trying to decipher it long ago,since I realized it exceeded me.
Some time,when it comes to the point,I would appreciate if you can briefly explain it. It doesn’t t have to be now if you believe it may complicate what you are now dealing with.Thank you!
Gracie I think this has quite a bit to do with AL, as a correct understanding of conscience likely has much to do with that sub-group of irregulars who have grown to realise fairly early on that the first marriage was a sham but are unable to gather robust enough evidence to prove this to the dregree required by a Tribunal.
I believe these will be the ones who, if abstinence is not humanly possible, may well be allowed to receive Confession and regular Communion without expressing a firm intention to abstain. Why? Because a PP, requiring a lesser standard of objective evidence, may well decide to the best of his knowledge that their subjective view plus less robust evidence is in fact the objective situation…and that they are not committing adultery so far as he (or anyone) can tell.
But back to the text. Yes, that word threw me a little also when I first read through. I have only ever seen it used liturgically - never in a moral theology reflection. But I think the meaning is relatively clear.
It is a remembering, a re-living of a foundational past event of great significance for the present. So he seems to be poetically saying that “conscience” is not simply some sort of here and now passing feeling/judgement or consciousness of a briefly contemplated course of action.
It is me reflectively accessing my whole past history of decision makings and learning from deep within at any given moment I care to quietly turn that “inward eye”. It is my whole significant past decisions and significant moral choice memories rising up as an integrated whole to speak to me on God’s behalf - if I choose to quieten down and listen.
So C.Ratz seems to be saying that a culpably malformed conscience will be one that has been ignored or even repressed (“stifled”) at seminal moments in the past. Like the cries of a hungry child ignored…if continually ignored at critical moments in ones history it eventually weakens and dies in those areas it protested…and not even a feeling of blind guilt may remain to consciousness.
A well formed and certain conscience (even if erroneous) will also be without guilt … but for the very opposite reason. That innocent voice has always been heeded and fed and one’s character and life changes to match the expectations of the child fed so that it is healthy and it does not cry so there is nothing for it to cry about.
That doesn’t mean we don’t always feed conscience healthy food. We all eat junk food, and when young we often do not even know the difference. Just because a child is cared for and belly full and doesn’t cry …that doesn’t always mean the food was the healthiest.
Hence informing conscience correctly is somewhat trial and error, and the work of a lifetime. So long as we continuously follow the limited lights available to us from others and improve our wisdom by learning from our own concrete mistakes we will not be culpable for feeding the voice of conscience bad or even infected food as it were.
One might ask how it is that even good people who always try to correctly form their conscience, who grow up in the Church with benefit of Church teaching and holy example…how they might still have less than well-formed consciences?
Consequences of the Fall I believe… imperfect example, imperfectly expressed teaching, imperfect understanding, venial sins. And also laws of growth…even Jesus grew in wisdom and understanding…some things just cannot be taught, they must be caught (like faith) or bought by pain (eg trial and error like riding a bike) personally.
Anyhow, that’s my 2 minutes stream of consciousness take on it!
