Cardinal Wuerl speaks on conscience, Church teaching, and Amoris Laetitia

[RCinMT]

You are making stuff up now. Pope Francis said no such thing.

Okay, interpret this direct quote for me:

“The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

To me, the term “even” implies that it obviously applies to those who have faith. How is one to reconcile the following: two people with the same intellectual or cognitive abilities, very similar life experiences, attended the same schools, had catholic claimed truths imparted onto them by the same people. One disagrees with the teaching but obeys against his/her conscience; the other follows his/her conscience and disobeys the teaching. Who is the sinner? Do not the pope’s own words say it’s a sin to disobey conscience?

 

[Ender]

Okay, interpret this direct quote for me: "The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience."To me, the term “even” implies that it obviously applies to those who have faith.

This comment applies to everyone. All it means is that if you do something you think is wrong you have sinned.

One disagrees with the teaching but obeys against his/her conscience; the other follows his/her conscience and disobeys the teaching. Who is the sinner? Do not the pope’s own words say it’s a sin to disobey conscience?

You assume that only one of them sins. The person who goes against his conscience and does something he thinks is wrong, sins. This is universally true and it doesn’t even matter if the act is in fact not objectively sinful.

For the one whose conscience leads him to reject the teaching, he may have sinned as well (and I would say he probably has), but this is not as cut and dry. The question of culpability must be resolved, and it is not resolved by asserting that a clear conscience is a free pass to act however we see fit. That is absolutely false.

Ender

 

[RCinMT]

This comment applies to everyone. All it means is that if you do something you think is wrong you have sinned.
You assume that only one of them sins. The person who goes against his conscience and does something he thinks is wrong, sins. This is universally true and it doesn’t even matter if the act is in fact not objectively sinful.

For the one whose conscience leads him to reject the teaching, he may have sinned as well (and I would say he probably has), but this is not as cut and dry. The question of culpability must be resolved, and it is not resolved by asserting that a clear conscience is a free pass to act however we see fit. That is absolutely false.

Ender

Okay, so a concrete example: two teens, both pregnant, both Catholic. One is just absolutely convinced by conscience that she should have the baby aborted and does so. She may have sinned but it’s not a sin for which she’s culpable because she followed her conscience. The other teen feels the same but has her baby. She has sinned and is culpable for that sin because she disobeyed her conscience.

 

[Milestone]

Okay, so a concrete example: two teens, both pregnant, both Catholic. One is just absolutely convinced by conscience that she should have the baby aborted and does so. She may have sinned but it’s not a sin for which she’s culpable because she followed her conscience. The other teen feels the same but has her baby. She has sinned and is culpable for that sin because she disobeyed her conscience.

Conscience isn’t reducible to how we feel. It’s more about knowledge of an action’s sinful nature, and the judgments we make based on that knowledge. If you have sinned but have reason to believe you may not have been culpable because of the situation surrounding the sin, you can talk with your pastor and try to discern with him whether or not you are culpable. Their are many factors that might effect culpability, like state of mind. Someone who has been drugged won’t be able to think as clearly about his actions. Coercion might also reduce culpability, if you were made to do the sin against your will.

 

[pnewton]

Okay, so a concrete example: two teens, both pregnant, both Catholic. One is just absolutely convinced by conscience that she should have the baby aborted and does so. She may have sinned but it’s not a sin for which she’s culpable because she followed her conscience. The other teen feels the same but has her baby. She has sinned and is culpable for that sin because she disobeyed her conscience.

I am not sure if this is even a possibility, that one can have no compunction about having an abortion, or at least know that it might be a moral choice that needs to be understood as a moral choice. I think the most likely situation would be an abortion in which culpability is reduced. A person can make a practice of self-deception that is more a deliberate deadening of the conscience than a formation. Then when one follows a conscience that has been deliberately muffled, then one is not free to choose.

But the whole question misses the point that it is the Church that teaches. It is God that judges. Catholics should not try and usurp either role.

By the way, you keep making the same error on many threads. No where does the Church teach about conscience that it does not also teach about the formation of the conscience. The two must go hand and hand. Sure, you may have a quote that only includes the former without the latter, but it will be in the context of people who know better and that of general Catholic teaching on the subject. Cardinal Wuerl was addressing seminarians who would know that the full Church teaching.

The Catholic Church teaching on conscience does not reduce to relativism. That is a grave misunderstanding. Also, it did not start with Cardinal Wuerl or Pope Francis. St. John Paul,s catechism says the same thing. It is the one part of the dubium with an easy answer. I do not even know why that one was asked.

 

[Ender]

Okay, so a concrete example: two teens, both pregnant, both Catholic. One is just absolutely convinced by conscience that she should have the baby aborted and does so. She may have sinned but it’s not a sin for which she’s culpable because she followed her conscience. The other teen feels the same but has her baby. She has sinned and is culpable for that sin because she disobeyed her conscience.

First, I reject out of hand the assumption that following our conscience frees us from all accountability for our actions. This is completely counter to what the church teaches. Second, I would need you to expand more on the behavior of the teen who doesn’t have the abortion. I’m not convinced this example is reasonable. Why would she not have the abortion since she feels it is the right thing to do?

Ender