"Conscience" in liberal non-Catholic churches?

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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 .

I don’t disagree with a word you say. I don’t know if some people have a “spirituality gene” and others don’t. And there is always the work of the Holy Spirit, which could overcome anything that is lacking in a person — even the lack of being otherwise predisposed towards spirituality.

There are some for whom visiting our national shrines — the many monuments in Washington, our battlefields, and even locations of national or historical significance (the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Wounded Knee, Plymouth Rock, or even Graceland — many people have a spiritual connection with Elvis, who gave great glory to God and even Our Lady in his music) — evokes a spiritual sentiment. The various death camps in Nazi-occupied Europe (one of which I have visited) also has this significance for many. It needn’t be expressly religious or even consciously spiritual. A sunrise on the beach or a baby’s first cry would also fall under this.

 

[rosejmj]

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.

There is nothing wrong with wanting that lifestyle. However, it is not necessarily better. At least not objectively. It depends on the person and family and it’s not for everyone, even those who can afford it. Having many kids also isn’t for everyone and not something I would encourage for most families from my experiences coming from a large family and knowing many large families. I don’t understand the glorification of large families that occurs among more traditional minded Catholics. I don’t think it is good for many children and parents of children. I’m not saying people should only have 2 kids. But I’m saying people need to think very carefully before having kids and before potentially conceiving another child. Also, bigger doesn’t equal better

 

[rosejmj]

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.

It would be impossible. I don’t understand all the focus on outlawing abortion when that won’t change people’s beliefs or situations. Outlawing it now would just cause other problems. There is also a lot of debate about contraception as an abortifacient. Usually contraception works to stop conception from happening. Very rarely does it cause an already conceived embryo or zygote to die, usually by preventing implantation. And that already is much different that aborting an embryo or fetus that is implanted in the womb. It is much smaller and much less likely to survive regardless of birth control. And is it really a person yet? Is a women to do everything she can to protect a potential life that she isn’t even aware of yet? It is already predicted that a large percentage of fertilized eggs don’t get implanted- they are miscarriages you may not even know about. It’s hard to know how much certain types of birth control actually contributed to that “abortion” . It could easily have been caused by other internal or external factors. Some of which the women even could have controlled.

 

[rosejmj]

And that would really play hob with the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

What I would really say is that some birth control may increase risks of miscarriage if pregnancy does occur. Just like many other activities, health problems, and medications. Would you consider those to be abortifacients?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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.

There is nothing wrong with wanting that lifestyle. However, it is not necessarily better. At least not objectively. It depends on the person and family and it’s not for everyone, even those who can afford it. Having many kids also isn’t for everyone and not something I would encourage for most families from my experiences coming from a large family and knowing many large families. I don’t understand the glorification of large families that occurs among more traditional minded Catholics. I don’t think it is good for many children and parents of children. I’m not saying people should only have 2 kids. But I’m saying people need to think very carefully before having kids and before potentially conceiving another child. Also, bigger doesn’t equal better

For a long time, it was just part of the “Catholic DNA”, and just stating the obvious, there was no way to use “family planning” until about 100 years ago, and even then, the methods — both artificial and natural — were crude and notoriously unreliable. So if a couple got married at any young age at all, it was entirely possible they would just keep having children. My grandmothers had nine and six children respectively, and neither were Catholic.

The Catholic Church “glorified” large families for many reasons — more souls to give glory to God, possibility of more vocations, and probably just the idea of having so many more Catholics in the world. Nothing wrong with that, unless one embraces the idea of “there will be fewer Catholics, it will become more and more of a privilege to be a Catholic” — which I utterly reject, we’re called upon to evangelize, not to curl up and die, to allow demographics to be destiny.

Casti Connubii: 60 Years Later | EWTN

Just found this article. I want to buy this man a beer!

Anybody who has issues with the numbers he cites, needs to contact him and remind him that he can’t know this, because he hasn’t talked to every Catholic in the world. I have no such issues.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Very rarely does it cause an already conceived embryo or zygote to die, usually by preventing implantation. And that already is much different that aborting an embryo or fetus that is implanted in the womb. It is much smaller and much less likely to survive regardless of birth control. And is it really a person yet?

I’m afraid so. “Whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers…”

Or, at the very least, we have to err on the side of assuming that it is a human person with an immortal soul. It may not be, but we don’t know that. As others have brought out in previous threads, Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception — it’s not “immaculate ensoulment” — strongly indicates that we must believe, as a corollary to this dogma, that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception (or, arguably, the moment at which the chromosomes fuse together to form unique, human DNA).

Is a women to do everything she can to protect a potential life that she isn’t even aware of yet?

Got to come down on the side of “yes” here, too. If it is an ensouled human life, what is the alternative? I have to think that a woman, who is fertile and in a conjugal relationship, has to assume that, however unlikely, she could be pregnant at any time. (I am not going to split hairs as to whether, then, she should ever take a drink or smoke a cigarette. Those things can be discontinued once she knows she is pregnant.)

It is already predicted that a large percentage of fertilized eggs don’t get implanted- they are miscarriages you may not even know about. It’s hard to know how much certain types of birth control actually contributed to that “abortion” . It could easily have been caused by other internal or external factors. Some of which the women even could have controlled.

Miscarriage is part of nature, part of the divine plan. We experienced it ourselves, at least once (and probably other times as well), before our son was born. It can’t be helped.

Even if the Church doesn’t categorically speak against it, I seriously question a couple — who uses birth control not as birth control, but for legitimate therapeutic reasons (which Paul VI expressly provided for in Humanae vitae) where the contraceptive effect is only tolerated and neither willed nor welcomed — not using periodic abstinence through what could be foreseen as the fertile period. (Also, even though it’s not mandatory, this would be an excellent way to show solidarity with all the couples who do use NFP, and to demonstrate that “we’re not getting a free pass from abstinence just because I have to take BCPs to control endemetriosis” [or whatever].) It may be that, when using such medications, ovulation can randomly occur at any time. Ovulation can always randomly occur at any time — not likely, but it’s far from uncommon.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So I just don’t know. I don’t know where you draw the line and say “even if a woman is not on any kind of hormonal medication, ovulation can always occur at any time, and miscarriage can occur at any time, even if it goes unnoticed — so what makes it different if she is on that kind of medication?”. This wasn’t known when Paul VI issued HV. Now it is. Here too, I do not condemn what the Church does not condemn, but that said, I’d at least want to ask the doctor if there are any other ways to address the medical problem that the BCP addresses.

 

[rosejmj]

For a long time, it was just part of the “Catholic DNA”, and just stating the obvious, there was no way to use “family planning” until about 100 years ago, and even then, the methods — both artificial and natural — were crude and notoriously unreliable. So if a couple got married at any young age at all, it was entirely possible they would just keep having children. My grandmothers had nine and six children respectively, and neither were Catholic.

Just because times were different back then doesn’t mean they were better. It’s not about being Catholic or not. It’s the time and culture and society we live in. People wanted to have more children because they needed hands to work and child and infant mortality was much higher. People lived in tighter knit communities where people knew each other and looked after each other. The culture is much different now and I think is less conducive to large families. There is nothing wrong with that necessarily just because you think big families somehow are better

 

[rosejmj]

The Catholic Church “glorified” large families for many reasons — more souls to give glory to God, possibility of more vocations, and probably just the idea of having so many more Catholics in the world. Nothing wrong with that, unless one embraces the idea of “there will be fewer Catholics, it will become more and more of a privilege to be a Catholic” — which I utterly reject, we’re called upon to evangelize, not to curl up and die, to allow demographics to be destiny.

It sounds like a scheme to take over the world. The goal shouldn’t be quantity, it should be quality. Why sacrifice the quality of life and good parenting and a healthy childhood so you can make more people? It sounds as if you don’t truly care for the individual. You can evangelize without trying to populate the world more than any other religion.

 

[rosejmj]

Got to come down on the side of “yes” here, too. If it is an ensouled human life, what is the alternative? I have to think that a woman, who is fertile and in a conjugal relationship, has to assume that, however unlikely, she could be pregnant at any time. (I am not going to split hairs as to whether, then, she should ever take a drink or smoke a cigarette. Those things can be discontinued once she knows she is pregnant.)

That sounds like a big burden to put on a women “just in case”. I mean it is her body. I understand you saying she can’t kill another body that is inside her, but why must she go out of her way to keep what is inside her healthy? Sacrifice pleasures and spend thousands on doctors appointments? Birth control like many medications can increase risk for miscarriage if pregnancy occurs. Actually, it probably decreases the risk because pregnancy is less likely and therefore the likely hood of an egg being fertilizer and not implanting is probably lower than if not on birth control. Isn’t that helping to prevent miscarriages? There is also little evidence that it’s the birth control itself stopping a fertilized egg from implanting and not just nature and what would have happened anyway

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Just because times were different back then doesn’t mean they were better. It’s not about being Catholic or not. It’s the time and culture and society we live in. People wanted to have more children because they needed hands to work and child and infant mortality was much higher. People lived in tighter knit communities where people knew each other and looked after each other. The culture is much different now and I think is less conducive to large families. There is nothing wrong with that necessarily just because you think big families somehow are better

I don’t dispute a word you say here. The modern world, at least the developed Western world, is less conducive to large families. Child mortality is relatively rare, and very few people live and work on farms. I do not dispute that many, and possibly most, couples have reasons, from time to time within their marriages, to limit the size of their families using NFP that would fall entirely under the mantle of “grave”, “serious”, “just”, or whatever adjectives the Church has ever used, making allowance for concrete times and circumstances. Some couples might want to consider having more children than they already have. That is a decision only they can make. I do acknowledge that confessors getting involved in this decision hasn’t had a very good track record — you need look no further than Quebec. Other couples may have the ideal number of children for them. I am not even going to suggest that any families might have “too many children”. Once they are conceived, their existence may not be questioned. That’s not a Catholic sentiment. The world says that, but we don’t.

The Catholic Church “glorified” large families for many reasons — more souls to give glory to God, possibility of more vocations, and probably just the idea of having so many more Catholics in the world. Nothing wrong with that, unless one embraces the idea of “there will be fewer Catholics, it will become more and more of a privilege to be a Catholic” — which I utterly reject, we’re called upon to evangelize, not to curl up and die, to allow demographics to be destiny.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It sounds like a scheme to take over the world. The goal shouldn’t be quantity, it should be quality. Why sacrifice the quality of life and good parenting and a healthy childhood so you can make more people? It sounds as if you don’t truly care for the individual. You can evangelize without trying to populate the world more than any other religion.

The whole world should be Catholic, and a Catholic majority would be a good thing — more souls would be giving glory to God in His One True Church, and the social order would reflect this, what is referred to as the Social Reign of Christ the King, instaurare omnia in Christo. How we get there really doesn’t matter. Evangelization is a good thing. So is a generous response to the command to “be fruitful and multiply”. There is a pious belief, though to my knowledge it doesn’t bind in conscience to believe it, that we have a duty to replenish heaven for all of the angels who fell along with the evil one. Even on a natural level (in part anyway), Our Lord allowed the aboriginal Americans to be evangelized and converted, not all that long after half of Europe fell away from the Faith.

That sounds like a big burden to put on a women “just in case”. I mean it is her body. I understand you saying she can’t kill another body that is inside her, but why must she go out of her way to keep what is inside her healthy? Sacrifice pleasures and spend thousands on doctors appointments? Birth control like many medications can increase risk for miscarriage if pregnancy occurs. Actually, it probably decreases the risk because pregnancy is less likely and therefore the likely hood of an egg being fertilizer and not implanting is probably lower than if not on birth control. Isn’t that helping to prevent miscarriages? There is also little evidence that it’s the birth control itself stopping a fertilized egg from implanting and not just nature and what would have happened anyway

Again, I don’t dispute a word you say here. What you said, that I have highlighted in bold, makes a great deal of sense. That is one reason we all get on here and discuss things back and forth — to learn from each other. I hadn’t thought of it that way, and I thank you for the observation.

 

[rosejmj]

Miscarriage is part of nature, part of the divine plan.

Then why isn’t part of the divine plan when it happens while someone is on birth control? And isn’t it divine plan if someone doesn’t come into existence do to the use of birth control. He is God and can make a baby if he wants to and works with “crooked lines”

 

[rosejmj]

The whole world should be Catholic, and a Catholic majority would be a good thing — more souls would be giving glory to God in His One True Church, and the social order would reflect this, what is referred to as the Social Reign of Christ the King, instaurare omnia in Christo. How we get there really doesn’t matter. Evangelization is a good thing. So is a generous response to the command to “be fruitful and multiply”.

I assure you a bad experience in a big Catholic family isn’t going to help turn the world all Catholic. It could easily lead to psychological damage, resentment, and abandonment of the faith they were raised up in. I have seen this myself in big families I know. I really don’t think raising a large family something most people are capable of doing in a healthy way

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Miscarriage is part of nature, part of the divine plan.

Then why isn’t part of the divine plan when it happens while someone is on birth control? And isn’t it divine plan if someone doesn’t come into existence do to the use of birth control. He is God and can make a baby if he wants to and works with “crooked lines”

It could be. But it is never part of God’s plan for someone not to come into existence due to the deliberate use of ABC as a directly willed contraceptive — not merely tolerating the unwanted side effect of infertility when ABC is used for “off-label” therapeutic purposes — for that is a sin, and God never wants us to sin.

I assure you a bad experience in a big Catholic family isn’t going to help turn the world all Catholic. It could easily lead to psychological damage, resentment, and abandonment of the faith they were raised up in. I have seen this myself in big families I know. I really don’t think raising a large family something most people are capable of doing in a healthy way

Bad experiences can happen in small families too. And people had large families for a long time, before there was any way to prevent it (either artificial or natural). And, granted, a lot of families were pretty miserable. A lot of women had serious issues with their husbands because — and I know this sounds crude — he kept them pregnant all the time when they would have preferred not to be. Marriage wasn’t seen as the self-actualizing joy-fest, the capstone achievement of a life well lived, that it is today.

I will concede that anyone who doesn’t feel capable of raising a large family, especially the younger they marry, should be prepared for the possibility of much abstinence within that marriage. Nobody has to marry, some people should not marry, and some people might wish to delay marriage until later in life, possibly even after the menopause. That might cut down drastically on the number of licit potential marriage partners, but you can’t have it both ways. Every state and stage of life has its own difficulties.

 

[rosejmj]

I will concede that anyone who doesn’t feel capable of raising a large family, especially the younger they marry, should be prepared for the possibility of much abstinence within that marriage. Nobody has to marry, some people should not marry, and some people might wish to delay marriage until later in life, possibly even after the menopause. That might cut down drastically on the number of licit potential marriage partners, but you can’t have it both ways. Every state and stage of life has its own difficulties.

People already get married later in our society. Getting married later just because you don’t want to have 10 kids seems to be a bad idea though. You are not required to have all the children you can. NFP also should not require a huge amount of abstinence either unless it does not work for a women in which case she should not be using it anyway. One can enjoy sex within marriage without wanting or planning on having children. Otherwise why should an infertile person or even someone who is older have sex? It sounds like another version of NFP. Just don’t have sex until you aren’t fertile, just count by years and not days if the month and only during long term infertile periods rather than short term infertile periods

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Getting married later just because you don’t want to have 10 kids seems to be a bad idea though.

I don’t think it’s a particularly bad reason. I’ve heard it called “Irish birth control”. At least it doesn’t involve resorting to any sinful behavior.

NFP also should not require a huge amount of abstinence either unless it does not work for a woman in which case she should not be using it anyway.

And what does she do if it doesn’t work?

Ordinarily, she’s not going to know whether it “works” or not, or how well it works, until she gets married and starts using it. It ultimately comes down to abandonment to Divine Providence. It’s entirely possible that a couple who absolutely, positively cannot have another child, will have to resort to total abstinence. Those without the Catholic Faith would simply follow the wisdom of the world and have themselves sterilized. We cannot do that. The cost of discipleship sometimes entails things we neither expect nor want. That has certainly been the case in my life, and the crosses I have been given (and which I will not discuss here) may, just may, get me to heaven. At the end of days, it may be proven that those crosses were necessary.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

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 do not understand what is so hard about this. Why do you reject it?

1> Because it does not make sense to you, so you make an informed decision to reject it as untrue?

2> Or do you compare it to what the Church teaches, and make an informed decision that it is not true?

Both of these involve making a personal choice directed by your conscience, but set that aside for now.

When I encounter something like your strawman, I compare it to what I know of Church teaching. If that does not satisfy me, I go to Church teaching, in this case Veritatis Splendor because I know it is covered there, but the Catechism or other relevant sources work as well. I make a choice based on those sources.

I cannot grasp your position that appears to suppress conscience. I was trying to help you answer your original question, which is easily answerable from my perspective on conscience.

 

[TULIPed]

Much is made, among adherents of more liberal religions, of “following one’s conscience”, as opposed to obeying an orthodox creed and making it one’s own.

What part of this am I missing?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit has a place in this - at least for Christians, no?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Much is made, among adherents of more liberal religions, of “following one’s conscience”, as opposed to obeying an orthodox creed and making it one’s own.

What part of this am I missing?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit has a place in this - at least for Christians, no?

I am assuming that your screen name is a reference to Calvin’s five points. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The Holy Spirit leads His One True Catholic Church to teach the truth about matters of faith and morals. We hear the Church, and give her teachings total assent of mind and heart. We form our consciences in accord with what the Church teaches us. If we come to a different conclusion than what the Church teaches, we are wrong and the Church is right, and we are the ones who must change.

Would we stand before Our Lord and tell Him “yes, I hear what You said in Your Word, but I just don’t happen to agree with that one thing You said, my conscience tells me something different”. I don’t think so. We approach the Church with the same docility of mind and heart — “He who hears you, hears Me”.