Catholic Conscience: Conformed, Forced, or Free?

[Elizabeth502]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, on individual conscience:

**1776 Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

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

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself**
Other posters were interested in discussing just how ‘free’ a conscience is which seems to be invalidated if its conclusions contradict Church teachings.

Are freedom and conformity to Church teachings contradictory?
Or does man’s true inner law always lead to Church teaching?

In answering, please provide examples of genuine conflicts with Church teaching which could rise to the level of conscience exemption.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Note that I should have more properly used the word “Informed,” but “conformed” has also come to be interchangeably used in these discussions.

Here is one essay:

vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm

**According to the Catholic ethical tradition, conscience is the ultimate subjective norm of all human action. By conscience I do not here mean a blind feeling or instinct but a personal and considered judgment about what one ought, or ought not, to do or to have done. By calling conscience the subjective norm, moral theologians intend to distinguish it from the objective norm, which is frequently described as right reason, that is, reason that apprehends the objective order of things, including the will of God as manifested through nature and revelation. A person’s conscience can be out of phase with what is objectively right. In such a case the individual will not be guilty for following the voice of conscience, but may be guilty for having failed to form that conscience by utilizing the necessary means. Conscience, therefore, is not autonomous. It cannot speak clearly unless it has been properly educated. When we are in doubt about whether our conscience is correct we have an obligation to seek guidance and instruction…

Without denying the normative value of conscience for the individual, public authority must also defend the rights of persons who might be injured by others seeking to follow the dictates of an erroneous conscience. The fact that a man thinks he ought to commit a murder does not imply the right to carry out such a crime. The state seeks to deter criminal actions, however well intended, and even uses force to restrain criminals from doing what they may feel conscientiously obliged to do. Thus the rights of conscience are far from absolute…

The relationship between authority and personal judgment may be described as dialectical. That is to say, the two are neither identical nor separable. Our personal convictions about what is right and wrong are at least partially shaped by what the community and its leaders have taught us, and on the basis of those convictions we determine whether to follow the community’s authorities in a given instance. To the extent that we have been successfully socialized into the community, our free and spontaneous judgments about right and wrong tend to coincide with the rules and expectations of the community.

Cases of conflict are the exception rather than the rule. Yet such cases do arise. In the area of civil life we are familiar with the phenomena of loyal dissent and conscientious objection. An enlightened government with a tradition of civil liberties makes provision for the rights of those who feel bound in conscience not to serve as combatants in a given war, or not to undergo blood transfusions. Yet there are limits to what people are permitted to do in the name of conscience. As I have already indicated, they are not permitted to trample on the rights of other persons or to jeopardize the common good…

These introductory remarks about political and educational institutions can greatly help us to understand the subject of “Church Authority and Freedom of Conscience.” The problems in each case are similar, and yet also profoundly different. The analogies between the church and institutions such as the secular state and the independent university are helpful only to a limited extent, because the church, while it has the features of a human society, is very different in its purposes, origins, and means. Neither the state nor the independent university, at least as conceived in our American tradition, is committed to any substantive set of beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality…

A second difference flows from the origin of the church. Unlike the secular state, the university, or any other institution on the face of the earth, the church, according to Christian belief, has been established by the action of God in Jesus Christ. The members of the church, including the highest officeholders, are not free to change in a substantive way the beliefs, structures, purposes, and forms of worship of the church. They are trustees, obliged to safeguard the trust committed to them.

Third, the church differs from other societies in the means whereby it discharges its mission. Unlike the secular state and many other organized groups, the church, at least in modern times, does not use physical coercion. It has no prisons and does not execute persons convicted of crimes such as heresy. It uses only the “sword of the spirit,” which works through love and persuasion and does not impose even spiritual penalties except in the hope of bringing about repentance and reform. The Declaration on Religious Freedom adopted at Vatican Council II, in asserting these principles, cautiously admitted that in the history of the church “there have at times appeared ways of acting which were less in accord with the spirit of the gospel and even opposed to it”’ (DH 12)…

The church also has at her disposal special aids not available to other societies. It has received from apostolic times inspired Scriptures and inspired traditions as expressions of its faith and guideposts for future development. Christ, moreover, has promised to remain with the community and its official leaders to the end of time…

When we think of authority in the church, we must surely include Scripture and tradition, popes and bishops, but the system of authorities is in fact much more complex and extensive. As Vatican II clearly taught, Scripture and tradition were not committed only to the hierarchy, but to the church as a whole (DV 10). All the members of the church share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal offices of Christ and therefore have their own part to play in the mission of the church (AA 2). Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith which characterizes the people of God as a whole (LG 12), believers can find reliable guidance in turning to the community of faith.

In the normal case conscience and authority are not opposed. Conscience is not a law unto itself, but seeks by its very nature to be conformed to the law of God. Conscience therefore bids one to recognize authority, and authority, in turn, educates one’s conscience. …Conscience and authority normally concur because both are given by the same God as helps for knowing what is to believed and done. **

 

[Elizabeth502]

Here is another page, citing papal encyclicals. It covers a lot of ground on this issue.

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/conscience.htm

 

[Gods_Peace]

It is well-formed and God-enriched and Christ-like as we are his body, one body in Christ.

 

[PJD1987]

Well this essentially makes the case (much better may I add) that I was attempting to make in the other thread. I hope our friends from that thread will add their thoughts and we can get the conversation going.

What it comes down to is whether or not there is such a thing as a morally objective right and wrong. If there is, then the Church is absolutely correct in trying to form the consciences of its members. That is what we believe.

On the other hand, if one follows what the Pope calls “the dictatorship of relativism”, then that person obviously will not believe their conscience has to conform to anything. That person will essentially believe that they are their own God and they make their own rules about what is moral and what is not. This is simply not the way the Church operates, or what we as Catholic’s believe.

People much smarter than I am have been working on how to convince others of moral objectivity for many years and will continue to do so. I’m not sure how far we’ll get on this thread, if anywhere. I certainly don’t believe I have the necessary knowledge or skills to convince anyone of anything, but I do my lousy best to defend the Church and it’s teachings, and I am willing to engage others in this clash of cultures and philosophies.

Again, I hope our friends will join the conversation, those who believe and do not believe. I will keep checking.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[St_Francis]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, on individual conscience:

**1776 Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

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

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself**
Other posters were interested in discussing just how ‘free’ a conscience is which seems to be invalidated if its conclusions contradict Church teachings.

Are freedom and conformity to Church teachings contradictory?
Or does man’s true inner law always lead to Church teaching?

In answering, please provide examples of genuine conflicts with Church teaching which could rise to the level of conscience exemption.

I would say that because of original sin, our consciences are clouded and the chances of a person’s always getting to Church teachings using their own conscience with no previous exposure would be rare.

We all have somewhat malformed consciences. What is optimal is to work through prayer and learning to bring our consciences in line with Church teaching.

I think a lot of things can interfere with that, tho. Old habits of thinking, pride, social tendencies around us, emotions, mistakes in our thinking, lack of understanding of Church teaching, all that and more can cloud our consciences.

When I returned to the Church, I really did not understand the teaching on birth control. I discussed it with God and asked for His help, and He helped

I think the main thing is to be willing to change, even if it means being embarrassed or having to do difficult things, like maybe talking about the issue of birth control with one’s husband who is already upset about the wife’s return to the Church.

I had a discussion a few weeks ago about how I had changed my stance on some issues as a result of discussing them with others almost entirely on message boards. I think that on some issues, we have to be unbending, so Church teaching is for me absolute. No, I will not change my mind about those issues.

OTOH, a lot of issues discussed are not clearly delineated by the Church, and we have to be open to changing our minds simply because we may learn something which explains how we are wrong. Someone may show me a Church document, or I may read a Church document for the 17th time and see something I hadn’t noticed before.

I can’t really base a decision on my conscience if I discover my conscience is wrong, and I can’t really try to hide the fact that my conscience is wrong because that would be sinful. So I just discuss issues and refine my understanding of them by stating what I think and hearing what others think and interacting, kind of like sharpening a knife.

I guess overall, *relying *on the “conscience escape clause” can be a little dangerous at times, because we might be keeping our conscience in a certain place so that we don’t have to change. We can refuse to read the document, we can willfully ignore what others are saying.

But we are limited. We don’t have time to learn *everything *so that our consciences will be perfect. We may not yet have reached the level needed to understand the importance of something.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The long and short of it is the conscience must by formed and informed by the light of truth according to the moral norms laid down by the Church. And we are bound to educate ourselves about those norms as best we can. And all Catholics are bound to act on those norms in their personal and professional lives, whether as workers, housekeepers, professional people, or political and public figures. The " common good " never trumphs objective moral norms.

:tiphat:

 

[Elizabeth502]

The long and short of it is the conscience must by formed and informed by the light of truth according to the moral norms laid down by the Church. And we are bound to educate ourselves about those norms as best we can. And all Catholics are bound to act on those norms in their personal and professional lives, whether as workers, housekeepers, professional people, or political and public figures. The " common good " never trumphs objective moral norms.

But Linus, do you not think that the common good and objective moral norms need not contradict each other? Can we sometimes not persuade society that society would operate best when it assumes objective moral norms in some areas?

And to some degree, civil and criminal law operate with this way: Thus, a murder by a civilian, not in some category of self-defense, is considered an absolute evil, deserving of punishment, and normally quite severe if there is a criminal conviction.

And even with regard to relative norms, overriding principles can be presented to society as the controlling absolute principles. I don’t see religious conscience and secular conscience as two realities which must be opposed. It’s my contention, rather, that what passes for secular “conscience” is more often a reflection of popular opinion instead of a process of serious reflection according to (any) norms. And when that unreflected “conscience” is assimilated by Catholics who are also not very informed about what the faith does and does not stand for…

“We have a problem, Houston…” (We have a conscience formed by secular society, and which, without discussion of any common good, will most often contradict Catholic moral values.)

 

[Benedict_John]

What of the mentally ill?
Where are they in this?
I have autism - should I follow my conscience - sometimes it comes up with some wacky stuff?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What of the mentally ill?
Where are they in this?
I have autism - should I follow my conscience - sometimes it comes up with some wacky stuff?

Well, you bring up a different issue, i.m.o., which is the level of responsibility for formation of conscience, as well as the level of responsibility (knowledge, control over) one’s actions. We always need to do the best of our conscious (as opposed to conscience ) ability to become informed and conform to authority in our lives. Take, for example, civil laws: We have an obligation-- within the limits of our cognition and emotional capabilities – to learn the laws and conform to the laws, especially assuming we are operating independently and not under the custodial care of someone else.

So yes, to the extent that we are capable of independent cognition, and have enough critical thinking tools to learn what civil and religious authorities expect of us, to that extent only we are responsible for how we form/conform our consciences. But that understanding may be limited by whatever personal disabilities we have.

The second area is one of behavior relative to our knowledge. We may have an informed conscience but be truly unable, intermittently or permanently, to control our impulses or adhere to what we know. There is the extreme example of the suicidally depressed person who is not helped by medication, knows the moral gravity of suicide due to a properly formed conscience, but cannot restrain himself or herself from a psychologically unrelieved hopelessness, and thus takes his own life. (Not too long ago I was told by a priest about a fellow priest or Brother who committed suicide, having suffered from unmitigated depression for years.)

I bring up control of impulses because this can be a difficult area for those with autism.

These are examples of problems with compliance on the part of the mentally ill. And of course, if one’s mental condition, as you say, prevents accurate understanding (sometimes or always), then the person cannot be held fully accountable for his actions. Generally, however, if things are that bad, there is often someone in the person’s life who assists in decision-making or takes on a guidance role, no?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But Linus, do you not think that the common good and objective moral norms need not contradict each other? Can we sometimes not persuade society that society would operate best when it assumes objective moral norms in some areas?

We should hope and strive for that yes and to some degree it does happen. But the two are getting further and further apart.

And to some degree, civil and criminal law operate with this way: Thus, a murder by a civilian, not in some category of self-defense, is considered an absolute evil, deserving of punishment, and normally quite severe if there is a criminal conviction.

But we see a deterioration of this also. Or at least there is a spreading attempt to paint violent crimes done by an individual of some groups less heinous or not even worth reporting (flash mob violence by certain groups). And one cannot deny the spreading of abortion and abortifacients by HHS and the growing demand for euthanasia.

And even with regard to relative norms, overriding principles can be presented to society as the controlling absolute principles. I don’t see religious conscience and secular conscience as two realities which must be opposed. It’s my contention, rather, that what passes for secular “conscience” is more often a reflection of popular opinion instead of a process of serious reflection according to (any) norms. And when that unreflected “conscience” is assimilated by Catholics who are also not very informed about what the faith does and does not stand for…

Of course they don’t have to be opposed but I can tell you it is much worse now than when I was kid. It is worse at every level of society and throughout every institution, schools, colleges, universities, the Federal Government and at all levels of government. The media has become so bad it is hardly safe to listen to it or watch it or read it. I’m speaking of religious conscience being smothered by the secular weltanschuung. You can put the imphasis on " relative norms " and " overriding principles " all you want. However you view it it is much, much worse today than fifty years ago. People, masses of people who go to work every day and run everything have no moral conscience ( not all of course) and that is why everything is falling apart. Institutional evil is the result from individual consciences gone amok. Look at the numbers of Catholics who no longer go to Church? That is a sign or what I mean.

“We have a problem, Houston…” (We have a conscience formed by secular society, and which, without discussion of any common good, will most often contradict Catholic moral values.)

Indeed we do. I wish it were not so.

 

[Benedict_John]

I bring up control of impulses because this can be a difficult area for those with autism.

In autism the pre-frontal cortex is impaired. Executive decision-making function is compromised.
Which brings up the question of obedience in responsibility for one’s actions in following advice (of one’s spiritual director/confessor)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Are freedom and conformity to Church teachings contradictory?
It would seem not. Christ came to teach us the truth, and he said that the truth will make us free.

Or does man’s true inner law always lead to Church teaching?

Man’s true inner law always leads to Christ and his Church if he follows reason and revelation. However, that inner law can be frustrated by outer influences. The world, the flesh, and the devil are among these outer forces constantly at work to seduce and destroy us. But even within the Church there may be, as Paul VI pointed out, the smoke of Satan at work. Those in the Church who would put conscience above the laws of the Church are seducing themselves into the belief that the Church is false and they are right. If any of the Church’s teachings are regarded as false, they might all be regarded as false. Where does that kind of thinking end but in leaving the Church, which a person of “conscience” would do if he is following his so-called “conscience.”

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Are freedom and conformity to Church teachings contradictory?
It would seem not. Christ came to teach us the truth, and he said that the truth will make us free.

On the contrary my dear friend, Christ didn’t come to teach us the truth. He came to give us the Truth which is Himself. Christ is Freedom and those who live for Him will be Free.

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:6[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]

We will come to know the Christ and the Christ will make us free!! :extrahappy:

 

[davidv]

On the contrary my dear friend, Christ didn’t come to teach us the truth. He came to give us the Truth which is Himself. Christ is Freedom and those who live for Him will be Free.

Did He not do both?

[bibledrb]John 14:6[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]John 8:31-32[/bibledrb]

We will come to know the Christ and the Christ will make us free!! :extrahappy: