Catholic teaching on conscience

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guilherme1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guilherme1

Guest
I am very confused about the Church teaching on conscience. She says, I think, that we must always follow our conscience so we can choose to do the right thing, but what if my conscience is telling me that the right thing to do is something that goes against a catholic teaching?
 
Conscience is a faculty if the intellect, making judgments about morals and actions. Conascience must be properly formed, and it ought to be formed by authentic Catholic teaching. Just as a person can make a wrong judgment about a scientific or physical matter, so can one make a wromg judgment about a moral matter. So the key is to have a correctly formed conscience.
 
Conscience is a faculty if the intellect, making judgments about morals and actions. Conascience must be properly formed, and it ought to be formed by authentic Catholic teaching. Just as a person can make a wrong judgment about a scientific or physical matter, so can one make a wromg judgment about a moral matter. So the key is to have a correctly formed conscience.
So, we must study the catholic doctrine to learn what is right and what is wrong. But what if a person studies the catholic doctrine and in the end is not convinced that the Church is right? What if the person thinks that the contrary opinion is more concrete than the Church’s opinion?
 
If a person’s conscience is wrong but the person believes it to be a correct judgment, you must follow your conscience. Still, if my conscience told me something was right and the Church taught that it was wrong, I would have serious second thoughts, and perhaps study the matter in more depth.
 
If a person’s conscience is wrong but the person believes it to be a correct judgment, you must follow your conscience. Still, if my conscience told me something was right and the Church taught that it was wrong, I would have serious second thoughts, and perhaps study the matter in more depth.
I think there is something very wrong with this explanation. I mean, if somebody’s conscience thinks that murder is ok and the person is not convinced that the Church or anyone is right, then not only he must follow his conscience, but we are not even allowed to try to stop him to kill (CIC 1782).
 
Last edited:
I am very confused about the Church teaching on conscience. She says, I think, that we must always follow our conscience so we can choose to do the right thing, but what if my conscience is telling me that the right thing to do is something that goes against a catholic teaching?
Only when certain.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
 
48.png
Guilherme1:
I am very confused about the Church teaching on conscience. She says, I think, that we must always follow our conscience so we can choose to do the right thing, but what if my conscience is telling me that the right thing to do is something that goes against a catholic teaching?
Only when certain.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
What if I am sure that the Church is wrong, even though she is not?
 
What if I am sure that the Church is wrong, even though she is not?
Then you go by your conscience-if you’re certain the Church is wrong it would be hypocritical and absurd to follow her. But when it comes to supernatural truths regarding God I believe that a person of sound mind and sincerity will eventually locate those truths within the Catholic Church if they perform due diligence in seeking truth.

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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.


In any case a person cannot make themselves believe something-they must be honestly convinced for a conviction to be authentic-and personally satisfactory.
 
Last edited:
48.png
Vico:
48.png
Guilherme1:
I am very confused about the Church teaching on conscience. She says, I think, that we must always follow our conscience so we can choose to do the right thing, but what if my conscience is telling me that the right thing to do is something that goes against a catholic teaching?
Only when certain.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
What if I am sure that the Church is wrong, even though she is not?
Certain means without doubt and sure means not disputable. The conscience has wrongly become the final judge for each person of what is right or wrong when it is independent of the laws of God.

Catechism
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
 
I think there is something very wrong with this explanation. I mean, if somebody’s conscience thinks that murder is ok and the person is not convinced that the Church or anyone is right, then not only he must follow his conscience, but we are not even allowed to try to stop him to kill (CIC 1782).
I think you’re misinterpreting that quote in the Catechism (the CCC, not CIC (which is the Code of Canon Law)). That sentence in the catechism references one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council – Dignitatis Humanae. Since the paragraph is kinda long, I’ll quote it in a subsequent post.

I would suggest that what’s being taught here isn’t “don’t prevent people from erroneous judgments of conscience”, but rather, “people and governments do not have the right to prevent actions that proceed from proper judgments of conscience.”
 
From Dignitatis Humanae:
the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.

Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind*. The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

There is a further consideration. The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.
The footnote in the text is as follows:
Cf. John XXIII, encycl. " Pacem in Terris ", April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 270; Paul VI, radio message, Dec. 22, 1964: AAS 57 (1965), pp. 181-182.
 
If you are required to follow your own conscience ONLY if it is well-formed, and the conscience is ONLY well-formed if it is in accordance with the teachings of the church, then why even bother with this pesky conscience? Just follow what the church teaches, and everything will be fine.
 
48.png
Guilherme1:
I think there is something very wrong with this explanation. I mean, if somebody’s conscience thinks that murder is ok and the person is not convinced that the Church or anyone is right, then not only he must follow his conscience, but we are not even allowed to try to stop him to kill (CIC 1782).
I think you’re misinterpreting that quote in the Catechism (the CCC, not CIC (which is the Code of Canon Law)). That sentence in the catechism references one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council – Dignitatis Humanae. Since the paragraph is kinda long, I’ll quote it in a subsequent post.

I would suggest that what’s being taught here isn’t “don’t prevent people from erroneous judgments of conscience”, but rather, “people and governments do not have the right to prevent actions that proceed from proper judgments of conscience.”
I don’t see how you got this interpretation, honestly.
 
If you are required to follow your own conscience ONLY if it is well-formed, and the conscience is ONLY well-formed if it is in accordance with the teachings of the church, then why even bother with this pesky conscience? Just follow what the church teaches, and everything will be fine.
I read several different interpretations on conscience that contradict each other, so I don’t know what to believe, honestly.

Ironically, I feel like my “conscience is telling me” that the catholic teaching on conscience is dumb.
 
48.png
Zerge:
If you are required to follow your own conscience ONLY if it is well-formed, and the conscience is ONLY well-formed if it is in accordance with the teachings of the church, then why even bother with this pesky conscience? Just follow what the church teaches, and everything will be fine.
I read several different interpretations on conscience that contradict each other, so I don’t know what to believe, honestly.

Ironically, I feel like my “conscience is telling me” that the catholic teaching on conscience is dumb.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
If you go here, there is quite a bit of thought underlying the quotes that are referenced up-thread.

A key point is that God speaks to every person. We all have varying capabilities to hear that voice. But the reality that God is speaking lends the conscience “sanctuary” that has to be respected. We don’t respect poor formation and decision making, but the conscience, per se, has to be respected.
This also illuminates why evangelism is never force. Evangelism respects the process happening in the conscience of the individual, and gives God himself and the person the room to grow together.
Force never works. Grace is what works.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Our conscience is created during our “formative” years. Our parents and other members of authority teach us what is “right” and what is “wrong”. There is no inborn moral compass. All we have to do is look at the different cultures and see the different ethical systems.

Just one example. A few hundred years ago in Germany it was inconceivable that a couple gets married without the bride already being visibly pregnant. The fecundity was very important, and its “proof” was mandatory. There are many other examples.
 
Germany as a country did not even exist “a few hundred years ago.’ The Germanic tribes formed a loose association of city states and the Republic was formed late in the 19th century.

If you’re incorrect about the country’s formation, why should I trust you on “a few hundred years ago’? Of course say 1000 years ago when parts were still pagan that ‘fecundity’ might have been the case. Otherwise you sound like you’re channeling ‘Clan of the Cave Bear.”
 
One must always be careful not to confuse conscience with feelings. A well formed conscience can discriminate between itself and feelings which should not play a major role in decision making.

Feelings have been granted way too much credibility in our culture these days. I dare say you can’t help but hurt another’s feelings these days if you speak the truth. That with everyone’s opinion being worthy of consideration which is flatly a falsehood.

Remember when “mind your own business” wasn’t an insult but good advice.
 
I don’t see how you got this interpretation, honestly.
It proceeds from the assumption that the Church doesn’t contradict itself in its teachings. You’re presumption is that the notions you mention are in conflict. I disagree, especially given the direction that the catechism’s (and DH’s) text emphasize: the use of conscience in the selection of one’s religious beliefs.

The catechism says “choose your faith as your conscience dictates”, not “choose murder”.
Ironically, I feel like my “conscience is telling me” that the catholic teaching on conscience is dumb.
Everyone’s conscience has the potential of being objectively wrong. I’d suggest that you ponder whether yours is, in this case. 🤷‍♂️
 
Germany as a country did not even exist “a few hundred years ago.’ The Germanic tribes formed a loose association of city states and the Republic was formed late in the 19th century.
Obviously correct, but not relevant for the case. You don’t have to trust the fact, but it stays a fact nevertheless. There have been thousands of ethical approaches to marriages, patriarchal , matriarchal, morgantic, “left hand” marriages, tribal arrangements… the list is huge. Every one of them was “moral” in their days and circumstances. The point is that there is no global concept of “morality”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top