Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[larkin31]

…That would be Catholic laity, both those who are observant and those non-observant, as well as those both informed about their faith (and scripture) and not informed about their faith (nor scripture).

Whatever. This is how those people identify themselves. The sit next to you in pews and receive the Host in front of you. The point is, I think, and as I have made several times, that in this country justice trumps private sexual morality among consenting adults. I take this to mean that here is another case of the same. The RCC will continue to teach and believe whatever it wants. In the meantime, there will be a different debate in the civil arena of civil justice.

And just a little reality check here: The Jews of Jesus’ time – and he was one – forbade the practice of homosexuality. Apparently he, and they, understood that it was possible to be compassionate yet not approve of forbidden behavior.

The practice, very likely, occurred anyway. Not sure what you mean by “forbade.” Nor do I see the relevance. If you want to argue that social and/or sexual morality should not evolve or improve from our more primitive times, then go ahead. I will disagree, as you might guess.

Compassion: from the Latin, meaning to suffer with. Doesn’t mean to approve of, to lighten up on, to give someone a pass on immoral behavior as a supposed hedge against theoretical eventual suicide, or because unless we approve, the person will feel bad, and thus we must prevent social rejection at all costs to the truth.

True. But your church does not so carefully parse this position. You seem to suggest that you will more readily accept suicide rather than soften this moral truth. Am I reading you wrong? If withholding moral censure from a gay teen would prevent his suicide, would you do it? In other words, which value do you put first?

Newsflash: The Catholic Church is not responsbile for even most of the suicides in the world, including most of the gay suicides

I have never said otherwise. Why are you defensive about this point?

The bortom line, larkin, is that we all know here that this subject is neverending with you,

There is an irony in you claiming this, which means that you have to be here, too, and you have to have been visiting and reading those other threads too.

for one simple reason: you have stated that you do not buy the concept of objective truth and objective morality. But that is the starting point for any Catholic discussing morality. And the point, relative to this thread, is that homosexual civil unions do have moral impact on society, most particularly, children

So, can we discuss WHICH moral we think is important to teach children? Or, is your point that no debate or discussion should occur on this point? If you are tired of the discussion, or not open to differing points of view, there is a sure-fire way to avoid them. I think you know what I mean.

 

[larkin31]

Excuse me? What about your admonishing? You seem to enjoy practicing it just as much as others.

I have a few times admonished individuals. If you mean something more than this, then please reveal.

The point isn’t that admonition is NEVER appropriate. But you already know this. I will assume.

Perhaps, as illustration, we could count the number of threads on homosexuality that are begun in order to welcome gays into the church and to provide them access to Catholic compassion and charity and the healing of moral truth? And then calculate a percentage of those threads as a portion of all the threads on homosexuality that are started here?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.

i’d love to read where anything in the Bible has been condemned by the Church.

 

[StTommyMore]

i’d love to read where anything in the Bible has been condemned by the Church.

Biblical fundementalism is treated very harshly by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

[estesbob]

Whatever. This is how those people identify themselves. The sit next to you in pews and receive the Host in front of you. The point is, I think, and as I have made several times, that in this country justice trumps private sexual morality among consenting adults. I take this to mean that here is another case of the same. The RCC will continue to teach and believe whatever it wants. In the meantime, there will be a different debate in the civil arena of civil justice.

The practice, very likely, occurred anyway. Not sure what you mean by “forbade.” Nor do I see the relevance. If you want to argue that social and/or sexual morality should not evolve or improve from our more primitive times, then go ahead. I will disagree, as you might guess.

True. But your church does not so carefully parse this position. You seem to suggest that you will more readily accept suicide rather than soften this moral truth. Am I reading you wrong? If withholding moral censure from a gay teen would prevent his suicide, would you do it? In other words, which value do you put first?

I have never said otherwise. Why are you defensive about this point?

There is an irony in you claiming this, which means that you have to be here, too, and you have to have been visiting and reading those other threads too.

So, can we discuss WHICH moral we think is important to teach children? Or, is your point that no debate or discussion should occur on this point? If you are tired of the discussion, or not open to differing points of view, there is a sure-fire way to avoid them. I think you know what I mean.

Still waiting for your definition of the kind of compassion the bishops are saying we should show for those who engage in homosexual behavior.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Biblical fundementalism is treated very harshly by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

That’s not what you said, and that’s not what I asked. You said that examples CMatt25 gave from the Bible have been condemned by the Church. The Church has never condemned any part of the Bible.

How particular groups interpret the Scriptures is an entirely different matter.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s not what you said, and that’s not what I asked. You said that examples CMatt25 gave from the Bible have been condemned by the Church. The Church has never condemned any part of the Bible.

How particular groups interpret the Scriptures is an entirely different matter.

Where did he say that? The post I read (the one you responded to) said that CMatt25’s examples of “biblical literalism” were condemned by the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

One of the reasons the abstinence laws were changed is because people were following the letter, and not the spirit of the law.
U
Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.
Homosexuality is different, It is a violation of the natural law. Nature itself hows that this is disordered, and can never be approved, no matter what the views of society may be.

Yes I know about the abstinance laws. It just seems strange to me a Catholic who is fasting and abstaining can have a meal of buttered lobster.

But anyway ok the Church condemns or rejects the New Testament era thought process of women keeping quiet in church. But not Biblical era thought on homosexuality. My prayerful and informed conscience just has a difficult time in these latter centuries in knowing with certainty that homosexuals choose their orientation any more so than heterosexuals one day suddenly wake up and say, “Oh, I think I’m going to be a heterosexual today”. And after informing my conscience, mine still has a difficult time believing homosexuals would choose the discrimination, condemnation, bullying, and so forth that comes with it.

But a theologian known at the time as Fr Ratzinger did once say over the Pope stands one’s conscience.

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

And while we must inform ourselves of teaching, CCC states we have the freedom to personally make moral decisions. Must not be prevented from acting according to conscience in religious matters. And we must obey our consciences so not to condemn ourselves.

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.

Jesus when explaining male and female marriage in Matt19, did say not all men can accept this and only “he that can take, let him take it”.

So there’s only this yet for me to say. Along each of our walks and lifelong journeys of faith, may God bless you and each of us here. And may His peace be with all His children born upon His earth.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Jews did a lot of things Catholics and Christians don’t follow. And there are a lot of things in Scripture Catholics and other Christians don’t subscribe to literally.

Catholics may feast upon a succulent dining of broiled scallops and lobster on days they are to abstain and fast.

A survey shows Catholics support gay unions? The world was created in literally 6, 24 hr days with the evening and morning being a day is something I don’t find a lot of Catholics taking literally either.

If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, she is not now stoned to death. We don’t cut off our hands when they cause us to sin. Virgins who are raped are not forced to marry their rapists after the rapist pays her father 50 shekels. A man and a woman who is engaged to someone else sleep together but are not stoned to death now. Clothing material is mixed nowadays. 2 kinds of seeds are planted in the same field. Intercourse during a woman’s period no longer sin.

We don’t practice slavery. Catholic women don’t keep quiet in church. A custom of the times? As much as views on homosexuality could have been a custom of the times. And so on and so on.

But God bless you all on your lifelong faith journeys and peace.

Brother, I am surprised at you. You are ususally a much finer arguer than this. By contrast, in this case, you are arguing Straw Man.

You removed my comment about Jesus from its context, which was a response to larkin about compassion. It is also, addressed to larkin (if you’ve read many of his frequent postings on moral stands taken by the RCC), a anticipatory response to his frequent inaccurate linkage of Jesus’ “love” (behavior, words) and compassion to modern society’s borderless attitudes toward morality. Many on the Right and on the Left, and many simply scripturally untrained – those with a little knowledge rather than a lot-- and who have particular axes to grind regarding what “the bible” does and doesn’t say – use the scripture inappropriately. In particular, they use it anachronistically. So because Jesus accepted publicly kinown sinners into his circle, treated them with respect, etc., it’s inappropriately assumed that his acceptance equalled approval – then and now. It’s also assumed inappropriately that because he refused to engage in public condemnation of those who had committed cetain sexual sins (adultery), that he somehow (double-leap) would have approved of homosexual behavior, or would have had nothing to say about it, would have been “tolerant” of it, and so publicly compassionate about it as to ignore its harm. Or, it’s assumed that because it wasn’t explicitly discussed in the Gospels, that therefore there was no ancient Jewish stand on homosexuality. Nonsense.

It is often argued (including by larkin) that to be faithful to the biblical figure of Jesus, we must loosen our moral reins regarding what is and is not sinful. Not at all. Such people do not at all understand Jesus’ attitude toward Torah, and they have not been deeply educated in that. (Some of us have. ) His attitude toward Law was deeper and more pervasive than many of his contemporaries; he advocated for a radical return to the comprehensive thrust of the Decalogue in all facets of daily life and relationships. That included a sexual morality that was strict, interior, and exterior.

It’s straw man to talk about things like shellfish and slavery. I’m talking about Jesus’ view toward sexual morality, which was centered and unified. His social gospel in no way diluted that.

 

[rlg94086]

Admonishment:

Maybe YOU should not promote callousness toward suicide on a Catholic forum.

I am a high school teacher. If you think that this day somehow takes from my–or that of others–concerns for ALL teen suicides, you are full of deep-seated religious prejudice.

I find your remarks incredibly uncharitable. Truly. Bizarrely so, and unbecoming of any big-hearted person. I feel fairly certain that no spokesperson for the RCC would suggest that concern for the suicides of gays is somehow contrary to church teaching.

I honestly think that you should examine yourself for your prejudice and callousness in this area. When self-righteousness trumps charity, I am quite saddened.

That this may have been done somewhere is no reason why you should smear another person’s legitimate concerns over suicides, especially of teens, be they gay or otherwise. Maybe YOU should keep your political issues out of remarks about concern for suicide. As I say, I doubt that the RCC does what you have done. In fact, I can easily quote the American Bishop’s council letter on this topic to censure your callous tone.

It entirely does matter what you feel–and your church frequently discusses sins of the heart and asks you to examine it and work on cleansing it. I am agnostic, but I fully believe that even inside ourselves we can have bad thoughts and feelings, and that some of these are harmful and should be addressed and reduced. And your church specifically asks you to work on your heart in regards to gays. I can quote the letter from the Bishops of America on this matter if you would like. True, they can’t MAKE you feel a certain way. But the Bishop’s letter CLEARLY asks you to approach and treat gays with a certain feeling and love, and I would say that having “compassion” for them is clearly part of their request. If you wish to state that you think it acceptable to ignore that request, then I simply would like to see if you would write that here.

so, the lack of compassion is spreading here, I see

and you are wrong about teens having nowhere to go because of the 1973 ruling. You don’t know what you are talking about.

You’re not being “harsh,” you are simply “wrong.” The poster I responded to specifically stated (see above) that “compassion” was not called for in dealing with gays and suicide. This was plainly stated by two posters.

So don’t make this into some other vague smear toward Catholics: it is not. I responded to those two posters directly, and quoted their words. I even offered to quote the letter from the American Bishops in which they specifically call for self-examination of the heart and for compassion toward gays. None of this is about “affirmation” of homosexuality. So, please do not turn it into that. You are not “harsh” in doing so; you are “wrong.”

If, you would also like to claim that compassion toward gay suicide is wrong, then please simply say so: that is what this exchange has been about. Nothing else.

You certainly seem to enjoy practicing admonition, also. Even here on an internet thread. Did Jesus encourage us to admonish each other, too? Was that in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere else? Where he said, basically, “Go, and admonish thy brethren?”

Whatever. This is how those people identify themselves. The sit next to you in pews and receive the Host in front of you. The point is, I think, and as I have made several times, that in this country justice trumps private sexual morality among consenting adults. I take this to mean that here is another case of the same. The RCC will continue to teach and believe whatever it wants. In the meantime, there will be a different debate in the civil arena of civil justice.

The practice, very likely, occurred anyway. Not sure what you mean by “forbade.” Nor do I see the relevance. If you want to argue that social and/or sexual morality should not evolve or improve from our more primitive times, then go ahead. I will disagree, as you might guess.

True. But your church does not so carefully parse this position. You seem to suggest that you will more readily accept suicide rather than soften this moral truth. Am I reading you wrong? If withholding moral censure from a gay teen would prevent his suicide, would you do it? In other words, which value do you put first?

I have never said otherwise. Why are you defensive about this point?

There is an irony in you claiming this, which means that you have to be here, too, and you have to have been visiting and reading those other threads too.

So, can we discuss WHICH moral we think is important to teach children? Or, is your point that no debate or discussion should occur on this point? If you are tired of the discussion, or not open to differing points of view, there is a sure-fire way to avoid them. I think you know what I mean.

I have a few times admonished individuals. If you mean something more than this, then please reveal.

The point isn’t that admonition is NEVER appropriate. But you already know this. I will assume.

Perhaps, as illustration, we could count the number of threads on homosexuality that are begun in order to welcome gays into the church and to provide them access to Catholic compassion and charity and the healing of moral truth? And then calculate a percentage of those threads as a portion of all the threads on homosexuality that are started here?

So, there are your examples…in just one thread. As far as admonishing never being appropriate, that is ridiculous. There are many time it is appropriate.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Where did he say that? The post I read (the one you responded to) said that CMatt25’s examples of “biblical literalism” were condemned by the Church.

“Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.”

CMatt25’s examples were from the Old Testament, they weren’t any religion’s interpretation of those examples. My position is that the Church has never condemned anything in the Bible.

Even where the Church now believes that certain passages are no longer applicable today, it has not condemned those passages of Scripture. It has tried to explain why they are passé and no longer in effect, and why some interpretations are wrong, but condemn part of the Bible? I think not.

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes I know about the abstinance laws. It just seems strange to me a Catholic who is fasting and abstaining can have a meal of buttered lobster.

But anyway ok the Church condemns or rejects the New Testament era thought process of women keeping quiet in church. But not Biblical era thought on homosexuality. My prayerful and informed conscience just has a difficult time in these latter centuries in knowing with certainty that homosexuals choose their orientation any more so than heterosexuals one day suddenly wake up and say, “Oh, I think I’m going to be a heterosexual today”. And after informing my conscience, mine still has a difficult time believing homosexuals would choose the discrimination, condemnation, bullying, and so forth that comes with it.

But a theologian known at the time as Fr Ratzinger did once say over the Pope stands one’s conscience.

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

And while we must inform ourselves of teaching, CCC states we have the freedom to personally make moral decisions. Must not be prevented from acting according to conscience in religious matters. And we must obey our consciences so not to condemn ourselves.

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.

Jesus when explaining male and female marriage in Matt19, did say not all men can accept this and only “he that can take, let him take it”.

So there’s only this yet for me to say. Along each of our walks and lifelong journeys of faith, may God bless you and each of us here. And may His peace be with all His children born upon His earth.

Conscience never trumps Truth. If your conscience is in conflict with the Church, then it is your conscience that needs to adapt. To say otherwise reduces Truth to mere relativism.

 

[rlg94086]

“Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.”

CMatt25’s examples were from the Old Testament, they weren’t any religion’s interpretation of those examples. My position is that the Church has never condemned anything in the Bible.

Even where the Church now believes that certain passages are no longer applicable today, it has not condemned those passages of Scripture. It has tried to explain why they are passé and no longer in effect, and why some interpretations are wrong, but condemn part of the Bible? I think not.

Right. He didn’t claim that the Church condemned the passages…only the use of “biblical literalism” when interpreting passages. He didn’t claim that the Church condemned any part of the Bible. You are way off base on this one, Rich.

 

[StTommyMore]

“Your examples of biblical literalism are actually condemned by the Church.”

CMatt25’s examples were from the Old Testament, they weren’t any religion’s interpretation of those examples. My position is that the Church has never condemned anything in the Bible.

Even where the Church now believes that certain passages are no longer applicable today, it has not condemned those passages of Scripture. It has tried to explain why they are passé and no longer in effect, and why some interpretations are wrong, but condemn part of the Bible? I think not.

I never said the Church condemned Scripture. I said the Church has condemned literalisitic interpretations. So off with you now.

 

[estesbob]

It’s straw man to talk about things like shellfish and slavery. I’m talking about Jesus’ view toward sexual morality, which was centered and unified. His social gospel in no way diluted that.

Agreed. You cannot take Jesus’s words in a vacuum nor can you read instructions on Jewish dietary law without putting them in the context of a nomadic people living in the wilderness.

I also see that the old “primacy of conscience” canard is once again being offered as a reason Catholics can ignore any church teaching that interferes with their politics. Accordingly it is probably time that we once again post the context of “primacy of conscience”

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1791.htm’) 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.

[1792](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1792.htm’) 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. **

[1793](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1793.htm’) If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

[1794](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1794.htm’) A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[rlg94086]

Conscience never trumps Truth. If your conscience is in conflict with the Church, then it is your conscience that needs to adapt. To say otherwise reduces Truth to mere relativism.

Yep. I always love when the heterodox quote the Catechism and leave parts out.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.* [CMatt25 chose to stop here]*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.

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.**

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 **A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.**61

 

[Elizabeth502]

Whatever. This is how those people identify themselves. The sit next to you in pews and receive the Host in front of you. The point is, I think, and as I have made several times, that in this country justice trumps private sexual morality among consenting adults. I take this to mean that here is another case of the same. The RCC will continue to teach and believe whatever it wants. In the meantime, there will be a different debate in the civil arena of civil justice.

Because “they receive the Host” they therefore know two figs what they’re talking about? Communion (received in any state of grace or lack thereof) produces instant Enlightenment and moral discernment? Who knew?

The practice, very likely, occurred anyway. Not sure what you mean by “forbade.”

Past tense of forbid, as in, forbidden (the past perfect ). There was absolutely no approval of homosexual activity among faithful, practicing, First Century Jews. Not in the moral code whatsoever.

Nor do I see the relevance. If you want to argue that social and/or sexual morality should not evolve or improve from our more primitive times, then go ahead. I will disagree, as you might guess.

I don’t think I would label Jesus’ view of sexual morality as “primitive.” I think I would label it as dignified and (as I said earlier) comprehensive, and in accordance with the logic of what is apparent in nature, and how Jewish thought was ordered toward God and nature.

I get what you’re saying about modern vs. ancient views of sexual morality. And also I get your concern about modern civil vs. modern religious views. It’s a valid point, but so do Catholics have a valid point, to this degree: No particular personal or institutional morality should be excluded, i.m.o., from the wider debate in society about homosexual unions and “gay marriage.” Society should not be amoral. For example, Catholics are charged with remembering their part in stewardship over the earth’s resources (not at all a new concept, a very ancient one; the ancient Jews even preceding Jesus considered themselves earth’s stewards). And many atheists have strong moral beliefs about earthly stewardship – aka various forms of environmental commitment.

And when we talk about anything affecting children, such as both homosexual unions and “gay marriage,” such as adoption rules, such as policies in public & private schools, such as the values (and lack thereof) taught in public and private schools, we have a right as private citizens, collectively, to bring our personal morality – whatever the sources of that are – to bear on public debate.

I’ll address separately your comments about suicide/gay suicide.

 

[CMatt25]

You removed my comment about Jesus from its context, which was a response to larkin about compassion.

It’s straw man to talk about things like shellfish and slavery. I’m talking about Jesus’ view toward sexual morality, which was centered and unified. His social gospel in no way diluted that.

I removed your comment because I was not commenting on that aspect of your post regarding Larkin and compassion. But rather on your comment of one thing Jews believed. And in comparison I was talking about many things believed in both OT and NT times. But it’s always straw man here when someone disagrees. God bless you and peace.

 

[tskrobacz]

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church was first published, paragraph 2358 read as follows:

The number of men and women who have deeply-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

This statement in the CCC was a superb progressive step for the Church in recognizing the moral demand upon believers to treat persons with a homosexual condition with the compassion and dignity Christ demands.

Unfortunately, the Vatican has decided to change the language of the paragraph in such a way that conservatives are lead to believe that homosexuality is a deliberate and disordered choice. The same paragraph now reads:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Is it no wonder there is widespread support?

 

[estesbob]

Yep. I always love when the heterodox quote the Catechism and leave parts out.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.* [CMatt25 chose to stop here]*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.

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.**

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

**The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.**61

Beat you to it!