"Conscience" in liberal non-Catholic churches?

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I do not think, though, that everyone who rejects HV does so from a standpoint of having studied it, weighing all arguments pro and con, and then selflessly coming to an educated, well-reasoned conclusion either to reject it, or to invoke “conscience”, not necessarily denying the teaching, but saying it would not be wrong (or at least not mortally sinful) for them , in their circumstances

I would agree. There are surely folks who have read HV and even studied the theology of the body (JP2, Chris West) and have still and all said, “I don’t think so.” However, this would be a small minority of both overall humanity and even among Catholics. Most of us just don’t dig deeply into moral matters. We have our consciences, partly formed by our fellow man (bc that’s how consciences are ever formed at all, by God and the human community in which you live) and that’s enough. We make our judgments based on little more than that. Is that what you’re saying? I think that’s probably right.

That is basically what I’m saying, I think it’s a fair characterization. I think the vast majority of these people have heard of the Church’s teaching on contraception and simply said “nope”. I don’t think much prayer, study, or scholarship has gone into it. Some of them may have had a teacher in catechism or Catholic school tell them “it’s up to your conscience”, said to themselves “my conscience says it’s okay”, and that’s as profound as it ever got.

HomeschoolDad:

Sometimes consciences never really form,

I don’t think so. The formation of the conscience is tantamount to the formation of reason itself. Each is irreducible to the human mind/soul. The use of the word “primordial” by Newman and the church is no accident

I have observed many people for whom “formation of conscience”, if it can be called that, boils down to this:

• whatever is good for me, or my family, or the people I care about, is good
• whatever is bad for us, is bad
• the big thing is staying out of trouble — legal, reputational, interpersonal, and so on
• hurting people is bad
• if it’s legal, it’s moral, and if it’s illegal, it’s immoral
• I wouldn’t do any of the “big things”, like killing someone, robbing a bank, stampeding cattle through the Vatican [sorry, I couldn’t resist that, it’s from Blazing Saddles], so I’m OK, I’m good, I don’t really do anything wrong

… and that’s the extent of their “conscience”. They repent of nothing, they regret nothing, they live very simple, self-assured lives on a moral level, and it goes no deeper than that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

giving one’s conscience back to God, and docilely accepting the teachings of Holy Mother Church,

I understand that attitude. I really do. And I respect it on one level. But I also believe that docility did not get slavery abolished. Docility didn’t see human freedom of conscience championed by Vatican 2. And the fight against capital punishment has been a long time forming. It wasn’t docility that got the church finally and fully on “the side of life,” to include even those convicted of heinous crimes. These have all been hard-fought fights and humanity (and the church!) are the better for them. My two cents anyway…

OK, I’ll buy that, you have some good thoughts. That is why I ride the Church ragged on the issue of birth control — Paul VI spoke against it magnificently in Humanae vitae, but the people rejected it, and despite Paul’s pleas for this to be a major priority for those who teach morality, as a practical matter it got “swept under the rug”, it comes up in pre-Cana classes (or at least it should), but that’s about as far as it goes. Pray tell, is it going to stay this way? A hundred years from now, will it be “that teaching that nobody believes in”, that’s just kind of “on the books” but people aren’t warned that it is a mortal sin of the flesh that could send them to hell for all eternity?

I have been a Catholic for 44 years (as of a few days ago) and I have never understood why the Church, as a practical matter, tolerates this. I really wouldn’t have a way to explain this to a non-Catholic. Would “old-timey” Baptist preachers put up with it if 92 percent of their congregations drank beer, wine, and whiskey? Would the Jehovah’s Witnesses just sit back if 92 percent of their congregations thought blood transfusions were acceptable, and pretend like nothing’s wrong? Would Muslims say, if 92 percent of their people enjoyed bacon and sausage on a daily basis, “well, that’s their conscience, not to judge”? I would hardly think so.

(For that matter, would the Anglicans or the Unitarians just “look the other way” and pretend that nothing was wrong, if 92 percent of their congregations thought it were a moral imperative for our country to return to segregation or anti-miscegenation laws? — the original question in this thread to begin with!)

 

[Dovekin]

If it is, however, “conscience as my sense of right and wrong, which the Church can inform but cannot force me to change”, then I reject it out of hand.

On what basis do you reject it? Are you running it through your own filter? Are you comparing it to Church teaching?

I keep asking this question and you keep avoiding it. You can explain all you want that you make decisions autonomously, and I will praise you for it since that has been my position. I am trying to get you to engage the part where you say you accept what the Church says, without filter.

Does the Church “force you to change”? Do you do what you think the Church says, or what you believe is right? Is it impossible for there to be a conflict between those two options?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

If it is, however, “conscience as my sense of right and wrong, which the Church can inform but cannot force me to change”, then I reject it out of hand.

On what basis do you reject it? Are you running it through your own filter? Are you comparing it to Church teaching?

I reject that notion of “conscience”. The Church does not teach this. Perhaps my construct “conscience as my sense of right and wrong, which the Church can inform but cannot force me to change” is what some derisively refer to as a “straw man”. What of it? I reject the concept that I describe, whatever you end up calling it.

The Church teaches both primacy of conscience, and that conscience must be correctly formed. There is no conflict.

I am trying to get you to engage the part where you say you accept what the Church says, without filter.

The Church “says” a lot of things. I accept, without filter, everything that the Church teaches as dogma, doctrine, or the constant teaching of the magisterium.

Does the Church “force you to change”?

No, Our Lord does. Again, “He who hears you, hears Me”.

Do you do what you think the Church says, or what you believe is right?

If the Church teaches one thing, and I “believe” another thing, the problem lies with me, and I am the one who must change, not the Church. Incidentally, I have been in this position before.

Is it impossible for there to be a conflict between those two options?

No. Almighty God will not allow the Church to be in error, and for me to be right instead.

Beyond this, I think this particular discussion is going to go down one of those famous “rabbit holes”, so I am going to leave you to think what you think, to think about what I think as you will, and I will continue as I am. Pax te.

 

[Servant31]

Personally I think there is basic room for an informed conscience, applied to life. For example, we have to obey all just laws. Makes sense. So driving at the speed limit makes a lot of sense. My personal conscience says…I have a corvette, and I’m awesome…dangerous is my name… and I can handle driving 30 over. That’s too much. The opposite might be I’m driving someone to the hospital on a back road in the desert. I can see for 15 miles. There is no danger, not another car in sight. But the speed limit is 35 due to the geese migration which occurs every year around May. The rules only version would dictate 35. Not an inch over…it’s the law! Well since it’s September, and I have a good reason…let’s just get there and save this persons life .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

[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.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Personally I think there is basic room for an informed conscience, applied to life. For example, we have to obey all just laws. Makes sense. So driving at the speed limit makes a lot of sense. My personal conscience says…I have a corvette, and I’m awesome…dangerous is my name… and I can handle driving 30 over. That’s too much. The opposite might be I’m driving someone to the hospital on a back road in the desert. I can see for 15 miles. There is no danger, not another car in sight. But the speed limit is 35 due to the geese migration which occurs every year around May. The rules only version would dictate 35. Not an inch over…it’s the law! Well since it’s September, and I have a good reason…let’s just get there and save this persons life .

Again, not all things that are legal are moral, and not all things that are illegal are immoral. “Reading the mind of the lawgiver” — epikeia — comes into play here. No, ordinarily you may not drive 30 miles over the speed limit, regardless of your feelings about it. There are other people on that highway, and sometimes automotive engineering fails. But if you have to get someone to the hospital, of course you may exceed the speed limit. Let’s say the police do pull you over. Stop and tell them what’s going on, and ask for an escort. My cousin was in this situation one time when he was in a remote area and his father suddenly fell ill. The police gave him a high-speed escort all the way into the city.

 

[Magnanimity]

• I wouldn’t do any of the “big things”, like killing someone, robbing a bank, stampeding cattle through the Vatican [sorry, I couldn’t resist that, it’s from Blazing Saddles ], so I’m OK, I’m good, I don’t really do anything wrong

… and that’s the extent of their “conscience”. They repent of nothing, they regret nothing, they live very simple, self-assured lives on a moral level, and it goes no deeper than that.

Nice on the Blazzing Saddles reference I don’t feel the need to contradict your claims above but maybe to tone them down. Maybe you’re being hyperbolic, but what person among us truly has no regrets? Maybe I haven’t been alive for as long as you, but I’ve had a lot of jobs and moved around the country more than my fair share. I haven’t met anyone who didn’t have regrets. Seriously. Such would be inhuman (or sub-human). If we really take the time to to get to know a “neighbor” deeply, we find that they are like us.

The human condition is a universal phenomenon. When we look at our neighbor we should see ourselves. In fact, I would argue that that is the deeper meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself.” A child understands that command as “oh, I’m supposed to love the other like I love myself.” That’s good for a start. But love and empathy require much more development. Eventually, one would hope to get to “love my neighbor as my self. As me. Why and how? Because my neighbor is me, and I am her. Common rationality. Common conscience. Commonly beloved of God. Common human dignity. Common sense of justice. Common desire for mercy and forgiveness… See what I’m getting at?

When we begin to see “the other” as so very different from ourselves, I thinking we’re swimming out into dangerous waters. I enjoyed all the other comments in your most immediate replies back to me though, so thanks for the engagement!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I accept everything the Church teaches, regardless. I don’t run it through a "filter called ‘me’ " to determine what I will accept, and what I won’t.

You need to first establish why you are Catholic. Because it is best possible explanation but not perfect? Because you were born as one?

I (and it seems it applies to you as well) am Catholic because I believe Church to be True Church of Christ and I believe Christ to be God. Hence I believe Church to be Infallible and hence to teach Truth. By this premise and acceptance of those things I can leave some things for Church to decide and I just accept what Church hands down to me. I still do my best to understand most dogmas but in the end I consider Church to be True because I am quite sure about the premise I included.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I accept everything the Church teaches, regardless. I don’t run it through a "filter called ‘me’ " to determine what I will accept, and what I won’t.

You need to first establish why you are Catholic. Because it is best possible explanation but not perfect? Because you were born as one?

I (and it seems it applies to you as well) am Catholic because I believe Church to be True Church of Christ and I believe Christ to be God. Hence I believe Church to be Infallible and hence to teach Truth. By this premise and acceptance of those things I can leave some things for Church to decide and I just accept what Church hands down to me. I still do my best to understand most dogmas but in the end I consider Church to be True because I am quite sure about the premise I included.

I chose Catholicism freely — I was not raised with it. I received what the evangelicals call a “Holy Ghost baptism”, a powerful charismatic physical manifestation, and then I began studying Catholicism. It made sense to me in a way nothing else ever had, and I finally became convinced that it was the Truth. No arguments against it made sense, and all arguments in favor of it did. Having come to this realization, I asked to be baptized.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

• I wouldn’t do any of the “big things”, like killing someone, robbing a bank, stampeding cattle through the Vatican [sorry, I couldn’t resist that, it’s from Blazing Saddles ], so I’m OK, I’m good, I don’t really do anything wrong

… and that’s the extent of their “conscience”. They repent of nothing, they regret nothing, they live very simple, self-assured lives on a moral level, and it goes no deeper than that.

Nice on the Blazzing Saddles reference I don’t feel the need to contradict your claims above but maybe to tone them down. Maybe you’re being hyperbolic, but what person among us truly has no regrets? Maybe I haven’t been alive for as long as you, but I’ve had a lot of jobs and moved around the country more than my fair share. I haven’t met anyone who didn’t have regrets. Seriously. Such would be inhuman (or sub-human). If we really take the time to to get to know a “neighbor” deeply, we find that they are like us.

The human condition is a universal phenomenon. When we look at our neighbor we should see ourselves. In fact, I would argue that that is the deeper meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself.” A child understands that command as “oh, I’m supposed to love the other like I love myself.” That’s good for a start. But love and empathy require much more development. Eventually, one would hope to get to “love my neighbor as my self . As me. Why and how? Because my neighbor is me, and I am her. Common rationality. Common conscience. Commonly beloved of God. Common human dignity. Common sense of justice. Common desire for mercy and forgiveness… See what I’m getting at?

When we begin to see “the other” as so very different from ourselves, I thinking we’re swimming out into dangerous waters. I enjoyed all the other comments in your most immediate replies back to me though, so thanks for the engagement!

…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Good thoughts. I did not mean that people have no regrets about anything. I was referring more to regrets about having failed morally, or having failed to give God, and their fellow man, their due. Surely many do. But many do not. I am in my sixtieth year, and I, too have had a lot of jobs, moved around a lot, and dealt with many, many people from all walks of life. I constantly challenge, question, and second-guess myself and my motives. It’s not scrupulosity, it’s just trying to be utterly honest with myself. Case in point — I had been poking gentle fun (not to their face) at another person’s mode of expression, to myself, in my own mind. Then I realized, I was not merely snickering at someone else’s lack of articulateness, I was angry with that person because they had slighted me, and was getting a “charge” out of lampooning them because they didn’t speak the King’s English. I was busted. So I cut it out. Without exalting myself — I am a worm and no man, I am the chief of sinners — are there people who do not practice that kind of introspection? I think there are. They just start from first principles of “I am always right, I can do no wrong, anything I do is good, I owe nobody an apology, I like ME”. They pride themselves on it. Their motto is “it’s all about me”, and they like themselves that way. Carried to the extreme, they are narcissistic sociopaths. But they are out there. They’re all over the place.

The human condition is a universal phenomenon. When we look at our neighbor we should see ourselves. In fact, I would argue that that is the deeper meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself.” A child understands that command as “oh, I’m supposed to love the other like I love myself.” That’s good for a start. But love and empathy require much more development. Eventually, one would hope to get to “love my neighbor as my self . As me. Why and how? Because my neighbor is me, and I am her. Common rationality. Common conscience. Commonly beloved of God. Common human dignity. Common sense of justice. Common desire for mercy and forgiveness… See what I’m getting at?

Very good. This sounds kind of like Rastafarian belief, and I am not saying they are wrong. They often say “I and I” instead of “we” or “us” (and, for some reason, Caribbean English tends to prefer “we” instead of “us”, as in “this does not concern we”, “this is not the place for we”, and so on). It’s an embracing of the very idea you cite — there is no “you”, “you” are part of “me”. Nice thought.

 

[Magnanimity]

constantly challenge, question, and second-guess myself and my motives. It’s not scrupulosity, it’s just trying to be utterly honest with myself

I am like you in this respect, if I’ve understood you correctly. What I often wonder about is the disparity among humans. How do you account for it in a way that acknowledges the intrinsic dignity of all people? I have concluded that there is something like a disposition toward being spiritual. This disposition is not equally shared among the human race. Some of us are more predisposed to it, I think. Would you put it like that? Take the overall group of all 40 year olds in the world, the whole lot of them. Now, the extent to which their consciences are formed will vary. The extent to which they are drawn toward religion/spirituality will vary. The extent to which they ponder anything transcendent or universal will vary. The extent to which they introspect will vary. Wide variation everywhere. How do you, personally, account for the variety? Just curious if your explanation is anything like mine. All humans, every last one of them, are beloved of God and they all bear his image. So, what gives? What accounts for these folks who you believe regret very little?

Very good. This sounds kind of like Rastafarian belief, and I am not saying they are wrong. They often say “I and I” instead of “we” or “us” (and, for some reason, Caribbean English tends to prefer “we” instead of “us”, as in “this does not concern we”, “this is not the place for we”, and so on). It’s an embracing of the very idea you cite — there is no “you”, “you” are part of “me”. Nice thought.

I genuinely didn’t know this about Rastafarian ppl, so thank you for sharing! You know who else thought similarly? The Eastern Fathers of the church. St Gregory of Nyssa famously taught that the salvific work of God was to bring the entire human race back to its Maker (not just this or that individual). Christ was sent to save humanity, conceived as one body—a totality. Certain philosophers have also had this persons-as-relational concept as fundamental to their perspectives. I’m naturally drawn to all that stuff, and I can only hope that humanity is on an unstoppable trajectory toward embracing the Rasta perspective.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

What accounts for these folks who you believe regret very little?

Many things, including, in no particular order:

• being ruled by one’s passions
• concupiscence
• desire to avoid cognitive dissonance ("deep down I know it’s wrong, but I’m not going to think about that — ‘don’t go there’ ")
• just plain old orneriness
• possible satanic or demonic influence
• pride
• having been raised that way
• selfishness

I could go on.

I basically agree with you, but there are many, many people whom I would describe as “low-spirituality”. For these people, what little they see of the transcendent (or the transcendent insofar as they comprehend such a thing), comes to them through love of their family, possibly love of country for many service members and other profoundly patriotic people (seeing their country as embodying some universally good, well-nigh divinely inspired truths and principles), or just helping people and trying to “be excellent to one another”. The motto of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin comes to mind — “don’t be evil”.

(And some people think it is “evil” to do such things as deny a woman freedom to choose an abortion, to teach the truth of one religion to the exclusion of any other, to uphold traditional family values and gender roles, and many other things. Those people are very hard to reach. It is a masterstroke of the evil one to label good as evil, and to persuade many to see it that way.)

 

[rosejmj]

Someone can think racist things and that racism is better. They may not know better for some reason. However, as soon as they try to impose that racism on others or treat others badly, they are doing something horribly wrong. Hurting people and putting their beliefs on someone else. I think this may be what more liberal minded “follow your conscience” churches may mean. You can act as you please as long as you aren’t infringing on someone else’s rights and aren’t harming another person. Your examples don’t work too well because advocating or making laws for racism or against woman working is forcing your beliefs on others and taking away their rights. Capital punishment is also killing people so it’s easy to see how that is hurting people. Of course these people aren’t living by what they preach when they expect everyone to even think the way they do. But there are people on both the conservative and liberal aides who do that. I think a more middle ground usually is a better approach

 

[rosejmj]

• desire to avoid cognitive dissonance ("deep down I know it’s wrong, but I’m not going to think about that — ‘don’t go there’ ")

That is definitely not something you can judge though. And even if someone thought maybe something was not good it’s not always a good place or time or situation to call someone out for it

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

• desire to avoid cognitive dissonance ("deep down I know it’s wrong, but I’m not going to think about that — ‘don’t go there’ ")

That is definitely not something you can judge though. And even if someone thought maybe something was not good it’s not always a good place or time or situation to call someone out for it

I didn’t say I could, and fraternal correction is always a matter of prudence. As I said, some people are very hard to reach. People nowadays generally don’t take kindly to being reminded that something they are doing is wrong.

Someone can think racist things and that racism is better. They may not know better for some reason. However, as soon as they try to impose that racism on others or treat others badly, they are doing something horribly wrong. Hurting people and putting their beliefs on someone else. I think this may be what more liberal minded “follow your conscience” churches may mean. You can act as you please as long as you aren’t infringing on someone else’s rights and aren’t harming another person.

That sounds like the Wiccan Rede — “an it hurt another, do as you will”. And this would have come as news to the teacher who asserted, when I challenged him, that conscience always reigns supreme, even in the matter of abortion. From what I have gathered, he is now in a position where he can’t mislead anybody anymore — let’s just say he’s lost a lot of credibility.

 

[rosejmj]

And some people think it is “evil” to do such things as deny a woman freedom to choose an abortion, to teach the truth of one religion to the exclusion of any other, to uphold traditional family values and gender roles, and many other things. Those people are very hard to reach. It is a masterstroke of the evil one to label good as evil, and to persuade many to see it that way.)

Because for them it is evil to force ones beliefs on another. Abortion and the morality of it isn’t as obvious to many people as you think it is or should be. There is also nothing wrong with not wanting to put your beliefs or a specific belief system onto your kids and there is some sense in doing so when your perspective of religion is different. Times have changed and not all traditional family values are relevant. Some traditional family values aren’t positive. Families were not perfect or even better back then just because the gender roles were more traditional and families had more children or went to church more regularly. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was more physical abuse and much less freedom to think and explore new ideas and women staying in unhealthy and abusive marriages. Gender roles also are not as important any more. People should not judge others for following them but it’s great that women are able to do more in the workplace. It’s also becoming harder and harder for families to support themselves with only one income. Those who are able to are the lucky ones. Other women are much happier working than being at home with kids and there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

And some people think it is “evil” to do such things as deny a woman freedom to choose an abortion, to teach the truth of one religion to the exclusion of any other, to uphold traditional family values and gender roles, and many other things. Those people are very hard to reach. It is a masterstroke of the evil one to label good as evil, and to persuade many to see it that way.)

Because for them it is evil to force ones beliefs on another. Abortion and the morality of it isn’t as obvious to many people as you think it is or should be. There is also nothing wrong with not wanting to put your beliefs or a specific belief system onto your kids and there is some sense in doing so when your perspective of religion is different. Times have changed and not all traditional family values are relevant. Some traditional family values aren’t positive. Families were not perfect or even better back then just because the gender roles were more traditional and families had more children or went to church more regularly. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was more physical abuse and much less freedom to think and explore new ideas and women staying in unhealthy and abusive marriages. Gender roles also are not as important any more. People should not judge others for following them but it’s great that women are able to do more in the workplace. It’s also becoming harder and harder for families to support themselves with only one income. Those who are able to are the lucky ones. Other women are much happier working than being at home with kids and there is nothing wrong with that either.

I agree with much of what you say, but there are families who freely choose a more traditional template for their life, and presumably everyone involved is happy with it. There are very traditional Catholic women (both OF and EF) who seek out husbands who can support this kind of lifestyle — wife stays home, possibly even homeschools the kids, NFP is only used as a last resort after having had several children, and the husband is in a secure occupation that is, ideally, recession-proof with generous benefits. Nice if you can make it happen.

And as far as abortion is concerned, it may be possible, if Roe v Wade can be “chipped away at” by conservative Supreme Court decisions (having a Republican President and Senate the next four years would help), to get some restrictions, in the second and third trimesters. But to outlaw abortion completely, from conception onwards, is going to be impossible without a massive conversion of the American people to various flavors of doctrinally orthodox, traditional Christianity. It takes a certain faith to accept that a very tiny, multicellular conceptus is a human life. And that would really play hob with the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

 

[Magnanimity]

but there are many, many people whom I would describe as “low-spirituality”.

Right. And I was trying to suggest that there may be something like a spirituality-gene. (Well, not a “gene” really but a temperament—a disposition.) That is, some folks are disposed to be spiritual. Others are disposed to be amazing at math. Some are disposed to be competitive athletes. Others are disposed to be artists. Some are disposed to generating wealth.

The human family seems to me to be a tapestry. The challenge for us all is in coming to really value others who aren’t like us and who are disposed to different things than us, especially when we don’t naturally value that which is valued by “the other.” Maybe you don’t really give a hoot about generating wealth. But your brother-in-law (who is all about it) and you have difficulty valuing each other. You think he should be more spiritual. And he thinks you should plant your feet more firmly in the ground and build some wealth.

Neither of you can quite understand each other, and I imagine it’ll always be that way until one of you accepts this “tapestry” motif. After all, St Paul uses a similar metaphor in describing the church as Christ’s “body,” and in so doing he goes on to note that different body parts have different roles to play to assist the overall Body. We’re not all hands or hearts or biceps. To me, the beauty of St Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology was that he extended that Pauline metaphor to all of humanity! Every single human throughout history comes together to make up the one Humanity.