Civil law and sin

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

To me, this is the heart of the matter. We each could come up with many reasons to disregard many civil laws, but are those reasons based upon a well formed conscience or are we using conscience as an excuse.

In addition to the good information you have provided I also found this I posted above:

How we each apply this concept will vary, correct? That is why I am trying to see if a general rule exists. It seems from what you have provided we must obey the civil law, unless there is grave necessity. If we disagree with a law we should seek clarification before breaking it and claiming it violates our conscience?
I think we are getting to the heart of the matter and possible some areas where we are having semantic misunderstandings. I in no way advocate it is right to use our conscience as an excuse. That is an abuse of conscience and a very grave matter as it is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

And, I resist (but don’t totally disagree) the idea that this matter can be reduced to a general rule applicable in all cases as it minimizes the concept of our prudential judgment. But I support that it can be a general rule to be respected and considered before one ventures into legitimate civil disobedience. I also resist the qualifier of “grave necessity” as it implies issues of life or death. But if it “grave necessity” includes issues of prudential judgment of legitimate authorities in these matters (ie. the principle of subsidiarity of the state/civil law in regards to the family), I concur.

While a agree we are to seek clarification for full understanding of the law, its intent, and its application, I don’t think it implies that we seek clarification from the civil authorities to be the arbiters of whether it is just. This is self-contradictory. If they are the arbiters, there is no room to ever question them.

A couple of other items of clarification.

1. There was an editorial comment in a post following a scripture quote from 1 Peter (Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.). I would use the word “abuse” rather than “use”. With the word “abuse”, I would agree for if a law is unjust, it is divine law which we “use” to disobey civil law.
2. I don’t want this quote from St. Thomas to be lost in the shuffle- “Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. (Summa Theologica, IIa, 96, 6)”.
3. St. Thomas admonition that dispensation be sought from civil authorities assumes they have standing in the matter. In areas where conscience denies the state authority, seeking dispensation from a illigitimate authority is self-contradictory and unnecessary. I know not everyone agrees w/ me (and I respect their prudential judgment in this area) but I believe the state has usurped and abrogated its obligation to respect the family unit. The state of affairs are such that they believe they are the final arbiters on matters that I believe are primarily that of the parents. While I previously sited the issue of alcohol regulation and teaching of young adults and budding adults, the issue includes matters of sex education and right sexual conduct, parental notificatin/consent before minors recieve abortions. While I never used corporal punishment with my kids, I don’t preclude the right of families to use it and I don’t judge them according to my standards but this again is becoming the perogative of the state, further diminishing the family perogatives.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fix:

Dave,

Thank you. You have explained things clearly and I appreciate your efforts here.

I would like you to explain this one paragraph more fully if you would?

I am not understanding what you are saying?

In the final analysis, we must act in accord with our conscience. See the Catechism on “moral conscience” here. By simply acting in our conscience, that does not make us sin free, however. We may act in accord with a faulty conscience which may not be free from the consequences of sin. Yet, by our conscience we can choose to obey the will of another, even if we don’t agree with that will. For example, my teenage daughter is expected to obey my will even if she does not agree or fully understand it. Why? She ought to accept the likelihood that I am better equipped to know what is best for her given the broader perspective I have on the situation that she may only partly understand. Yet, if that intellectual reasoning isn’t appearant to her, she should obey out of charity, even when it is clear to her teenage conscience that I am wrong. Her conscientious objection or “civil disobedience” is illegitimate and sinful, and cannot or does not negate my legitimate authority. The only exceptions to her obligation to obey me, have already been described by St. Thomas above.

This really has much to do about the golden rule: “do unto others that which you would have done unto you.” If people were to place themselves into the governor’s seat and try to understand things from their perspective they would understand why obedience is a virtue. For example, as an officer in the Air Force, I expect my subordinates to tell me “But, Sir…” when they think I’m making a faulty decision or taking our unit in the wrong direction. However, if after a “But, Sir…” or two, I come to disagree with the opinion of my subordinates, I expect them to champion my orders to their subordinates as if they were their own orders. Why? That’s the charitable thing to do. If instead, they were to fail to deliver my orders and champion them to their subordinates and throughout the unit, then they would be disloyal and derilict in their duties. That’s how I expect to be treated by my subordinates, so that’s how I treat the officers appointed over me, even when I think they don’t have a clue what they are doing. I give a “But, Sir…” or two, and then champion their will throughout the rest of the unit as if it were my own.

 

[vz71]

Quixotic means “foolishly idealistic”. Hmmm. IMHO, to assert we are to submit to even that which is foolish as moral does imply the civil authorities have achieved at least demi-god status.

While one could read that into the definition, I believe the proper usage in the context would be that of being impractical.
quix·ot·ic cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifk-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifk) also quix·ot·i·cal (-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/...o.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
adj.

1. 
   *]Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.
   *] Capricious; impulsive: “At worst his scruples must have been quixotic, not malicious” (Louis Auchincloss)
   

   Additionally, we are to ask the local sheriff if HE enforces a particular law?

   It would be foolishness to ask those whose job it is to enforce the law, while they are civil authorities, they are not the proper ones to ask. The proper ones would be located further up the food chain.
   

   Our Concsience as used in the Catechism and taught by the Church is perfect as it is from God. It is becuase of failure to listen to our conscience (as defined by the Church) that we make erroneous judgments.
   
   You are confusing common vernacular use of conscience as something made by the the invidual and the use by the Church in that it is the very voice of God. It is impossible for there to be conflict in our Conscience and the Truth. Please read very closely this discussion in the CC. There is a distinction between what we normally use in non-theological circles and what the Church means by Conscience.

   and
   

   My concience is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If I hear that voice, I’m called to follow it. If I err, my conscience will judge it as error as that too is the voice of the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Church.

   Allow me to quote the CCC, I’ll bold the parts I believe relevant to the problem at hand…
   
   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 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.” 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.”
   
   ** 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.
   **

 

[vz71]

itsjustdave1988:

Fix,

I think what St. Thomas described is about as close to a general rule as we are going to get. Keep in mind that law is for the common good. Sometimes a particular person’s hardship in obedience to the law is still best for the common good. We have crosses to carry, and often we don’t see our obedience as the cross God has placed before us. Individuals tend to disregard the common good in favor of their own particular good. That’s a poor reason to disregard lawful authorities.

Actually, it sounds like the line between just and unjust laws lies in wether the law is for the common good.

It might be good to go ahead and post a few things from the CCC concerning the common good… II. THE COMMON GOOD

1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:
Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25 1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and *development *of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the *security *of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29

1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

While one could read that into the definition, I believe the proper usage in the context would be that of being impractical.
quix·ot·ic cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifk-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifk) also quix·ot·i·cal (-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/...o.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
adj.

1. 
   *]Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.
   *] Capricious; impulsive: “At worst his scruples must have been quixotic, not malicious” (Louis Auchincloss)
   
   It would be foolishness to ask those whose job it is to enforce the law, while they are civil authorities, they are not the proper ones to ask. The proper ones would be located further up the food chain.
   
   and
   
   Allow me to quote the CCC, I’ll bold the parts I believe relevant to the problem at hand…
   
   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 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.” 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.”
   
   ** 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.
   **

1. 
   Regarding the use of the word quixotic, I was just addressing your statement “But, I doubt quixotic laws would fall into the catagory of unjust.” I just took them at face value.
   
   I not only concur but I endorse whole-heartedly what the CCC says about erroneous judgment. I’ve said this numerous times. In fact, the quotes of mine before your posting of the CCC sites are my summary of that very issue. Specifically, "Our Concsience as used in the Catechism and taught by the Church is perfect as it is from God. It is becuase of failure to listen to our conscience (as defined by the Church) that we make erroneous judgments. My concience is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If I hear that voice, I’m called to follow it. If I err, my conscience will judge it as error as that judgment is the voice of the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Church.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I not only concur but I endorse whole-heartedly. I’ve said this numerous times. In fact, the quotes of mine before your posting of the CCC sites are my summary of that very issue. Specifically, "Our Concsience as used in the Catechism and taught by the Church is perfect as it is from God. It is becuase of failure to listen to our conscience (as defined by the Church) that we make erroneous judgments. My concience is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If I hear that voice, I’m called to follow it. If I err, my conscience will judge it as error as that judgment is the voice of the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Church.

But I believe you are mistaken here. 1790 and 1791 are quite clear in showing that the conscience can make errors in judgement.
It is not just our failure to listen to our conscience that can cause problems, but our own (misinformed) conscience as well. That is why it is a moral imperitive to keep your conscience very well informed.

Would that we could just trust our conscience in all things, it would be a lot easier. It is fortunate that we also have the CCC, the Church, and the traditions contained therein to help guide us.

 

[fix]

Is not part of the correct formation of conscience understanding that civil authority must be obeyed as Dave has pointed out?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

vz71:

Actually, it sounds like the line between just and unjust laws lies in wether the law is for the common good…

I agree.

However, I want to clarify that I agree with St. Thomas that it is not the competence of every individual to determine the “common good” of the community. That competence belongs to those given the lawful authority to govern. The final authority in interpreting what is objectively just is the Catholic Church, not the so-called “primacy of conscience.”

Only “necessity” or “sudden peril needing immediate remedy” dispenses from law. Those who would claim otherwise likely have one rule for their subordinates (obey absolutely) and another for their governors (obey if and only if I personally agree it is prudent to do so). Holy Writ, however, doesn’t give a “prudence” caveat for obedience.

Rom 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.****”

Heb 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you."In general, if you don’t like a law, you are obliged get it changed lawfully and carry the cross of obedience until it is changed. It is not a law that is yours alone, but belongs to the whole community. It is uncharitable to your neighbor to disregard your neighbors civil laws. You may opine that such a law is wrong, but the community has a mechanism in place for “due process” in disputes and modifying legislation. If one were to claim the benefits of a community while at the same time defiantly disregarding her laws, that one would be considered criminal, certainly lacking in charity.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fix:

Is not part of the correct formation of conscience understanding that civil authority must be obeyed as Dave has pointed out?

Yes, because as St. Paul asserts, "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I
While a agree we are to seek clarification for full understanding of the law, its intent, and its application, I don’t think it implies that we seek clarification from the civil authorities to be the arbiters of whether it is just. This is self-contradictory. If they are the arbiters, there is no room to ever question them.

It depends on the circumstance. We may need to check with Church authorities as well. I think Dave’s point is unless we are in immediate danger, we ought to obey and seek out answers before we disregard any law.

1. There was an editorial comment in a post following a scripture quote from 1 Peter (Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.). I would use the word “abuse” rather than “use”. With the word “abuse”, I would agree for if a law is unjust, it is divine law which we “use” to disobey civil law.

I think the point here is we cannot use higher law in a way not intended simply to release us from civil obligation.

1. I don’t want this quote from St. Thomas to be lost in the shuffle- “Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. (Summa Theologica, IIa, 96, 6)”.

OK, but that determination is not made by each us in every case. We are not competent in every area.

1. St. Thomas admonition that dispensation be sought from civil authorities assumes they have standing in the matter. In areas where conscience denies the state authority, seeking dispensation from a illigitimate authority is self-contradictory and unnecessary. I know not everyone agrees w/ me (and I respect their prudential judgment in this area) but I believe the state has usurped and abrogated its obligation to respect the family unit. The state of affairs are such that they believe they are the final arbiters on matters that I believe are primarily that of the parents. While I previously sited the issue of alcohol regulation and teaching of young adults and budding adults, the issue includes matters of sex education and right sexual conduct, parental notificatin/consent before minors recieve abortions. While I never used corporal punishment with my kids, I don’t preclude the right of families to use it and I don’t judge them according to my standards but this again is becoming the perogative of the state, further diminishing the family perogatives.

These cases should be brought to Church authorities for their informed opinions before we take upon ourselves to defy the civil authority. Again, is there immediate danger by observing the civil law?

As an example, if the bishop claims a particular law contradicts Church teaching regarding raising your family, I would think that is reasonable proof one could disregard the law and attempt to change the law.

 

[vz71]

itsjustdave1988:

I agree.

However, I want to clarify that I agree with St. Thomas that it is not the competence of every individual to determine the “common good” of the community. That competence belongs to those given the lawful authority to govern. The final authority in interpreting what is objectively just is the Catholic Church, not the so-called “primacy of conscience.”

I agree completely.

 

[fix]

itsjustdave1988:

In general, if you don’t like a law, you are obliged get it changed lawfully and carry the cross of obedience until it is changed.

Yes, so we are obliged to get a lawyer, go through the courts or whatever and try to change the law or challenge the law? That does not mean we immediately break the law and do what we think is right.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

But I believe you are mistaken here. 1790 and 1791 are quite clear in showing that the conscience can make errors in judgement.
It is not just our failure to listen to our conscience that can cause problems, but our own (misinformed) conscience as well. That is why it is a moral imperitive to keep your conscience very well informed.

Would that we could just trust our conscience in all things, it would be a lot easier. It is fortunate that we also have the CCC, the Church, and the traditions contained therein to help guide us.

Re-read them again.

1790 doesn’t impugn the rightness of conscience but the conscience was ignorant of the facts leading to an erroneous judgment. For instance, I see a woman dragging a kid out of a store kicking and screaming. My conscience allows me to not intervene as I believe it to be a mother trying to control a misbehaving child. However, that night I read about a kidnapping at the store. I made an erroneous judgment. I could make the same mistake in disobeying (or obeying) a law. It doesn’t impugn the perfection of conscience.

1791 And, using the example above, because I didn’t take the time to further observe and gather more information because I had an attitude of “not my problem” or I had been walking past people in need over time (repeated sin), I’m culpable for my erroneous judgement.

I am to rely exclusively on my conscience to guide me as the conscience is the very Word of God. It is my obligation to gain knowledge to properly discern that which is from God (my conscience) vs. that from Satan. Prayer, Scripture, living a holy life, recieving the sacraments worthily and the Catechism all are critical for me to properly discern. And as I said before, the Catechism is the least critical for it is not with knowledge that we do God’s will but with a heart lovingly turned to God.

I Cor. 13:1-2 If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don’t have love, I am nothing.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps an example would help clarify the moral consequences of this issue. Take for instance, Fr. Richard P. McBrien’s “conscientious objection” to obedience to canon law…

Why I Shall Not Seek a Mandate
By Richard P. McBrien

Fr. McBrien openly and publically opposes canon law. Catholic canon law states, Can. 812 “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.” Fr. McBrien, in the article above, tells us why he is choosing to violate canon law.

Is this conscientious objection to canon law a legitimate reason to disobey, according to the rules described by St. Thomas Aquinas? In what way is Fr. McBrien practicing virtue, worthy of every Catholic but especially of clergy?

Let’s see…

1. Is it within the scope of authority of the Catholic Church to require a bishop’s mandatum to teach theology in the name of the Catholic Church? Certainly.
2. Is it contrary to higher authority (Divine law, in this case), that the Catholic Church should demand a mandatum? Not at all.

Thus, the recourse available to Fr. McBrien would be to seek a lawful dispensation from higher authorities based upon the reasons he has put forth in the article above. If his reasons are so compelling, then he should confidently expect dispensation. It is clear, however, that he does not have a legitimate “necessity” or “sudden peril needing immediate remedy” such that he could consider himself dispensed from canon law due to necessity, right? Thus, without a dispensation from higher authorities, Fr. McBrien is simply a criminal, correct?

Does his conscientious objection mitigate his guilt? I dunno. Is he a moron? Is he under duress? Only God knows what non-voluntary impediments to his intellect and will may be present, however, it seems clear from his article that he is criminal, objectively speaking.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I am to rely exclusively on my conscience to guide me as the conscience is the very Word of God. It is my obligation to gain knowledge to properly discern that which is from God (my conscience) vs. that from Satan.

This does not square with the CCC.
The conscience is not the Word of God.
ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I am to rely exclusively on my conscience to guide me as the conscience is the very Word of God. It is my obligation to gain knowledge to properly discern that which is from God (my conscience) vs. that from Satan. Prayer, Scripture, living a holy life, recieving the sacraments worthily and the Catechism all are critical for me to properly discern. And as I said before, the Catechism is the least critical for it is not with knowledge that we do God’s will but with a heart lovingly turned to God.

I do not understand you here. There is a primacy of truth. That means we must form our consciences correctly.

What about this?

**2039 **… At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Orionthehunter:

I am to rely exclusively on my conscience…

I think the word “exclusively” has some regrettable connotations which I don’t believe you intended.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty.* It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good… Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology*” (Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian).

The CCC calls the conscience “a messenger of Him.” To describe it as exclusive is to connote that it is THE “messenger of Him,” which is incorrect. That it is an aboriginal vicar of Christ does not mean that other vicars of Christ are not equally or in fact, more important in determining the truth.

 

[Orionthehunter]

This has been a good debate. Many points have been raised that will aid me in better understanding my role with regard to tempering a personal sense of justice with that of an obligation to society, especially in assessing the right action (obey, work to change, disobey) with regard to particular laws I consider unjust.

At the same time, a primary motive in my posts is my abhorance of a creeping attitude of “it is legal thus it is moral” or deserving of respect/sanction. While a submissive attitude doesn’t result in sins of commission, I believe this attitude can lead to sins of ommission as our submission gives sanction to laws and societal “norms” that are harmful and counter-productive. Somebody once told me that all laws are judgments of morality. Unfortunately, more and more the judgments of our civil authorities are what all of us on this thread would consider immoral.

While one can argue that our tax laws are confiscatory, arbitrary and capricous, these are subjective standards in nearly all cases and probably won’t give one moral sanction to disobey the tax laws. (I’m using this situation as there is no imminent danger and a moral consensus even among us five is unlikely much less all of society or the Church).

At the same time, if someone feels obliged to disobey and is willing to face the civil consequences, I’m not going to judge them as necessarily sinful. In my heart, I think that there is merit in standing up for something out of principle when one is faced w/ civil consequences. It smacks of St. Thomas More’s willingness to submit to the punishment of the King and yet not conceding a greater cause (his soul) despite his personal consequences (his head).

In short, if one is being civilly disobedient because they are standing up for what one considers a higher cause so long as they are willing to accept the civil consequences, I will not judge them necessarily immoral or sinful (even when I disagree w/ their cause so long as it isn’t objectively immoral or sinful). I think it was itsdave who said that bearing the cross of submission is our call even in the face of unjust laws. I agree for many that is the case. But for some, standing up with full commitment of purpose, will and hopefully conscience, in the face of punishment, ridicule, or other “crosses” can be equally moral and meritorious.

In my opinion, an act of defiance can truly be meritorious. In fact, standing up in defiance of an issue not so black-and-white as that of St. Thomas More can even be more meritorious. As in this case, when all around are opposed, a lone wolf in the wilderness is sometimes exactly what God is calling for. It is easy to stand for what is popular.

And determining the sinfulness is a exclusive perogative of God. And, conscience will give feedback on the act’s sinfulness.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Fix: Is not part of the correct formation of conscience understanding that civil authority must be obeyed as Dave has pointed out?

From itsjustdave1988 in response: Yes, because as St. Paul asserts, "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Of course such obedience is limited. In the words of St. Thomas, there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power…Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him…in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone." (ibid.)

I reject the concept of danger if it implies only matters of life and death. If I’m obligated by law to sanction that which is immoral, I’m free to disobey even if the matter isn’t a matter of life and death.

The introduction of dissent from teaching authority is not apples to oranges. So far, this debate has not been about the legitimacy of ecclesiastical authority and our obligation to obey. I have a much firmer fidelity to reconcile myself to the Church vs. the state.

From justdave: However, I want to clarify that I agree with St. Thomas that it is not the competence of every individual to determine the “common good” of the community. That competence belongs to those given the lawful authority to govern. The final authority in interpreting what is objectively just is the Catholic Church, not the so-called primacy of conscience.

I agree that if one is to choose to be civil disobedient (except in the case of a spontanous choice where time is of the essence) there is a great deal of obligation on the part of the person to make themself well-informed. And it is this pursuit of knowledge (divine, ecclesiastical, civil and social) that will give one competance on this issue. Competance is not the sole perogative of the duly elected.

And keep in mind that even St. Thomas concedes that the competance of the “lawful authority” is limited in specific situation. “Therefore we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his very words… every law is directed to the common weal of men… Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.” (Summa Theologica, IIa, 96, 6)

Finally, the Church is the objective authority as it speaks w/ unequivocal authority inspired by the Holy Spirit. And the subjective authority allows the exercise of prudential judgment of the individual where it is less clear and open to private revelation. In these situations, the conscience is the guide. For instance, the Church’s stance on abortion is an exercise of its “objective authority”. JPII’s views on the US-Iraqi war or on the application of the death penalty are such examples of where the individual is charged with the obligation to sincerely examine its conscience.

From justdave: In general, if you don’t like a law, you are obliged get it changed lawfully and carry the cross of obedience until it is changed. It is not a law that is yours alone, but belongs to the whole community. It is uncharitable to your neighbor to disregard your neighbors civil lawsif you do so with malice or without prayerful consideration of the ramifications and your motives . You may opine that such a law is wrong, but the community has a mechanism in place for “due process” in disputes and modifying legislation. If one were to claim the benefits of a community while at the same time defiantly disregarding her laws, that one would**/could** be considered criminal, certainlypotentially lacking in charity.

Dave, if I may, I’d like to slightly modify this quote using bold. I think it is a pretty good summation of what our general attitude and disposition needs to be. Without these changes, it appears to effectively define all civil disobedience as illicit and sinful.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From VZ: This does not square with the CCC.
The conscience is not the Word of God.

I apologize for capitalizing “Word”. It does smack of a connotation not intended. I should have said (from CCC 1777) “When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.”

Fix, I agree w/ your reference of 2039. I’ve tried to make it clear that what is from God is perfect and that what is a personal errant interpretation of conscience is not of God. That is why I’ve tried to say that our conscience can never conflict with the Magisterium as we objectively know that what the Magisterium teaches is from God while our imperfection (vincible and invincible) can lead us to err, even while believing we are following our conscience.

from itsdave: I think the word “exclusively” has some regrettable connotations which I don’t believe you intended.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good… Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology” (Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian).

The CCC calls the conscience “a messenger of Him.” To describe it as exclusive is to connote that it is THE “messenger of Him,” which is incorrect. That it is an aboriginal vicar of Christ does not mean that other vicars of Christ are not equally or in fact, more important in determining the truth.

You are 100% incorrect. My use of exclusive does imply that it can supercede the objective authority of the Church. I do not in any way advocate that. When the Church speaks, I listen! I meant to say concience is the pre-eminent authority relative to civil authority.