Conscience question

[LaSainte]

Let’s say I have a fully informed conscience on a certain issue (I’m going to use condoms as an example). I have read all the church documents on it and prayed about it over years and still, my conscience cannot be reconciled with church teaching. Let’s say that for whatever reason, my conscience is telling me 1.) God does not want a married couple to be abstinent indefinitely, 2.) I must do everything in my power (save abstinence or the use of abortion-inducing ABC) to avoid having another child-which includes NFP, coitus interruptus and condoms, simultaneously.

Now, considering that I would have done everything in my power to conform my conscience to church teaching and begged God to help me, and considering the fact that my conscience would be telling me that it would in fact be EVIL not to use NFP, condoms and coitus interruptus to avoid having another child for whatever reason, would I be sinning by obeying church teaching? The catechism says that anyone who disobeys the certain judgement of their conscience condemns himself, no ifs, ands or buts. It also says that a conscience may be erroneous, but DOES NOT excuse one from following it.

So the question is, is a person who has been diligent in forming their conscience in line with the church to no avail sinning by going against their conscience?

 

[puzzleannie]

Let’s
So the question is, is a person who has been diligent in forming their conscience in line with the church to no avail sinning by going against their conscience?

obviously if one’s personal conscience judgement is at odds with God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church, one has NOT done all in his power to fully form a correct conscious and exercise right judgement. His best course of action is to invoke the gifts of the Holy Spirit received at his confirmation, continue to pray and study the issue, and meanwhile act in accord with the Church teaching, which cannot err.

 

[LaSainte]

obviously if one’s personal conscience judgement is at odds with God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church, one has NOT done all in his power to fully form a correct conscious and exercise right judgement. His best course of action is to invoke the gifts of the Holy Spirit received at his confirmation, continue to pray and study the issue, and meanwhile act in accord with the Church teaching, which cannot err.

That’s a cop-out. What more can one do besides reading all available material including encyclicals, church fathers, the bible, studying natural law arguments, frequenting the sacraments, seeking priestly advice, and praying the rosary daily with the intention of forming one’s conscience according to the church for years on end?

I’m not saying I have done all of this, but if one had, are you really suggesting that one should commit what one feels is a grave evil for the sake of blind obedience? That is not what the catechism says.

 

[marine13]

That’s a cop-out. What more can one do besides reading all available material including encyclicals, church fathers, the bible, studying natural law arguments, frequenting the sacraments, seeking priestly advice, and praying the rosary daily with the intention of forming one’s conscience according to the church for years on end?

I’m not saying I have done all of this, but if one had, are you really suggesting that one should commit what one feels is a grave evil for the sake of blind obedience? That is not what the catechism says.

I think what the poster was trying to say is that the teachings of the Church are a higher authority than one’s individual conscience. Since we are all imperfect our conscience is susceptible to the negative influences of sin and therefore should not supersede the moral laws of the Church. Because of this it cannot be sinful for a person to set aside, what they believe is, a well formed conscience and follow the Church’s teachings. In fact it makes no sense that a person could sin by following the Church over their own conscience since the Church is the perfect source of light and truth.

I have struggled with a few teachings of the Church but have come to recognize that I am just a man who’s conscience is not infallible… the Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. Therefore, if I am struggling with a moral issue, know the Church’s stance, but my conscience is pulling me in the other direction, I know that something is blocking me from seeing the truth. The blocking could come from sin, ignorance, or the simple inability to understand, but that does not excuse me from not following what the Church says.

The “In Brief” section of the Catholic Catechism about conscience states that:

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

This means that God’s laws and the authority He gave to His Church must be a part of our conscience. If a part of our conscience does not coincide with the Church’s teachings then there is still more work to be done.

 

[LaSainte]

I have read on this forum that if someone believes that what they are doing is a mortal sin and does it anyway, then it is a mortal sin regardless. So if I believe that eating meat is a mortal sin, and I do it anyway, I have willfully separated myself from God regardless of the morality of the action.

Even the bible supports the idea that depending on one’s beliefs, certain actions may be sinful to some and not to others.

So of I believe that not using a condom would be a mortal sin, but I choose not to out of fear and blind obedience to the church, wouldn’t I be willfully separating myself from God?

 

[Bookcat]

An important line from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that often gets forgotten in discussions of “conscience”.

From CCC 2039:

“Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

---

Another line of interest:

“Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth.”

–Cardinal Ratzinger (Truth and Conscience 1991)

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have read on this forum that if someone believes that what they are doing is a mortal sin and does it anyway, then it is a mortal sin regardless. So if I believe that eating meat is a mortal sin, and I do it anyway, I have willfully separated myself from God regardless of the morality of the action.

Even the bible supports the idea that depending on one’s beliefs, certain actions may be sinful to some and not to others.

So of I believe that not using a condom would be a mortal sin, but I choose not to out of fear and blind obedience to the church, wouldn’t I be willfully separating myself from God?

No, you can’t make something into a mortal sin just by believing that it is one. If I believe that combing my hair is a mortal sin, I am not going to hell because I combed my hair in spite of my belief. A mortal sin is a gravely disordered act, based on God’s teaching and not on our individual or collective beliefs.

You are twisting what is simple in order to try and get approval for an action that is always contrary to God’s desires for us.

 

[Bookcat]

Is following the teachings of the Church regarding contraception – blind obedience??

No it is “knowing obedience” ones* knows* that the Church teaches by the authority of Christ.

Knowing what the Church is.

 

[LaSainte]

An important line from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that often gets forgotten in discussions of “conscience”.

From CCC 2039:

“Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

---

Another line of interest:

“Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth.”

–Cardinal Ratzinger (Truth and Conscience 1991)

“set in opposition” implies a deliberate attempt to believe something other than what the church teaches. If one has truly tried with all their might to come to agreement with the church, then they have not “set” their conscience in opposition to it.

 

[LaSainte]

No, you can’t make something into a mortal sin just by believing that it is one. If I believe that combing my hair is a mortal sin, I am not going to hell because I combed my hair in spite of my belief. A mortal sin is a gravely disordered act, based on God’s teaching and not on our individual or collective beliefs.

You are twisting what is simple in order to try and get approval for an action that is always contrary to God’s desires for us.

I have seen people here say otherwise, because the intent was to commit a mortal sin.

 

[puzzleannie]

let’s try an example

The city closes a popular mineral spring because it is contaminated with industrial toxins, which testing proves are present, yet cannot be tasted or smelled. Many people have come to depend on the water from that spring, love the flavor continue to surreptitiously draw water from the spring. They choose to disbelieve all the scientists and experts hired by the city water department, in spite of the fact that they have a spotless record of accuracy and honesty.

These water users have done their own “research”, started their own websites and blogs promoting the benefits of the water, and disparaging the city’s rulings and findings.

Question: If I believe the spring is contaminated but drink the water anyhow because I like it, will I be harmed by the toxins?

Question: If I truly believe the city is wrong, the water is fine, and I drink it–will I be harmed by the toxins?
(you may take it for the sake of this example that the water is indeed toxic).

Question: If I love that water, don’t understand the city’s ruling and don’t understand the science behind it, yet forego drinking it, and instead drink pure water from a good source, am I going to be hurt by the bad water?

 

[Nate13]

Let’s say I have a fully informed conscience on a certain issue (I’m going to use condoms as an example). I have read all the church documents on it and prayed about it over years and still, my conscience cannot be reconciled with church teaching. Let’s say that for whatever reason, my conscience is telling me 1.) God does not want a married couple to be abstinent indefinitely, 2.) I must do everything in my power (save abstinence or the use of abortion-inducing ABC) to avoid having another child-which includes NFP, coitus interruptus and condoms, simultaneously.

Now, considering that I would have done everything in my power to conform my conscience to church teaching and begged God to help me, and considering the fact that my conscience would be telling me that it would in fact be EVIL not to use NFP, condoms and coitus interruptus to avoid having another child for whatever reason, would I be sinning by obeying church teaching? The catechism says that anyone who disobeys the certain judgement of their conscience condemns himself, no ifs, ands or buts. It also says that a conscience may be erroneous, but DOES NOT excuse one from following it.

So the question is, is a person who has been diligent in forming their conscience in line with the church to no avail sinning by going against their conscience?

From the pope off another thread. It fits perfectly to your question I believe.

“Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority. Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word. Some authors reduce conscience in this its aspect of final arbiter to the formula: conscience is infallible.”

“Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.”

“What I was only dimly aware of in this conversation became glaringly clear a little later in a dispute among colleagues about the justifying power of the erroneous conscience. Objecting to this thesis, someone countered that if this were so then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience. Another responded with utmost assurance that of course this was indeed the case. There is no doubting the fact that Hitler and his accomplices who were deeply convinced of their cause, could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, the objective terribleness of their deeds notwithstanding, they acted morally, subjectively speaking. Since they followed their albeit mistaken consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and, as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation. Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false. For, subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom do not justify man.”

 

[thistle]

I have seen people here say otherwise, because the intent was to commit a mortal sin.

Please direct us to a post in a thread to support your claim. You cannot just throw up unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[LaSainte]

Please direct us to a post in a thread to support your claim. You cannot just throw up unsubstantiated assertions.

I will try to find the thread. I believe Bookcat was involved. If he remembers, perhaps he can clear it up.

 

[LaSainte]

From the pope off another thread. It fits perfectly to your question I believe.

“Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority. Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word. Some authors reduce conscience in this its aspect of final arbiter to the formula: conscience is infallible.”

“Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.”

“What I was only dimly aware of in this conversation became glaringly clear a little later in a dispute among colleagues about the justifying power of the erroneous conscience. Objecting to this thesis, someone countered that if this were so then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience. Another responded with utmost assurance that of course this was indeed the case. There is no doubting the fact that Hitler and his accomplices who were deeply convinced of their cause, could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, the objective terribleness of their deeds notwithstanding, they acted morally, subjectively speaking. Since they followed their albeit mistaken consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and, as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation. Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false. For, subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples which follow therefrom do not justify man.”

So the bottom line is: conscience is worthless and doesn’t matter at all. Whenever. We are faced with a moral dilemma that has not been clearly pronounced upon by the Church, we need only ask ourselves “What would the Church tell me to do?” and just do that.

Except that’s not what the catechism says. The catechism says that God speaks directly to us through our conscience, that conscience is sacred, and that although it can sometimes. E erroneous, we condemn ourselves if we do not follow it.

 

[sw85]

Let’s say I have a fully informed conscience on a certain issue (I’m going to use condoms as an example). I have read all the church documents on it and prayed about it over years and still, my conscience cannot be reconciled with church teaching. Let’s say that for whatever reason, my conscience is telling me 1.) God does not want a married couple to be abstinent indefinitely, 2.) I must do everything in my power (save abstinence or the use of abortion-inducing ABC) to avoid having another child-which includes NFP, coitus interruptus and condoms, simultaneously.

Now, considering that I would have done everything in my power to conform my conscience to church teaching and begged God to help me, and considering the fact that my conscience would be telling me that it would in fact be EVIL not to use NFP, condoms and coitus interruptus to avoid having another child for whatever reason, would I be sinning by obeying church teaching? The catechism says that anyone who disobeys the certain judgement of their conscience condemns himself, no ifs, ands or buts. It also says that a conscience may be erroneous, but DOES NOT excuse one from following it.

So the question is, is a person who has been diligent in forming their conscience in line with the church to no avail sinning by going against their conscience?

The Church is protected from error – you are not.

If your conscience is telling you to do evil, the safe thing to conclude is that your conscience has been corrupted (at least with regard to the issue in question) by the spirit of the present age – and then proceed to ignore it when it conflicts with the teachings of the Church, the magisterium of which is alone legitimate.

 

[LaSainte]

let’s try an example

The city closes a popular mineral spring because it is contaminated with industrial toxins, which testing proves are present, yet cannot be tasted or smelled. Many people have come to depend on the water from that spring, love the flavor continue to surreptitiously draw water from the spring. They choose to disbelieve all the scientists and experts hired by the city water department, in spite of the fact that they have a spotless record of accuracy and honesty.

These water users have done their own “research”, started their own websites and blogs promoting the benefits of the water, and disparaging the city’s rulings and findings.

Question: If I believe the spring is contaminated but drink the water anyhow because I like it, will I be harmed by the toxins?

Question: If I truly believe the city is wrong, the water is fine, and I drink it–will I be harmed by the toxins?
(you may take it for the sake of this example that the water is indeed toxic).

Question: If I love that water, don’t understand the city’s ruling and don’t understand the science behind it, yet forego drinking it, and instead drink pure water from a good source, am I going to be hurt by the bad water?

But God and science are 2 different things. God reads our intentions and can decide what to do with our souls according to His best judgement. Poison is poison and will always kill a person. By this analogy, a person who was invincibly ignorant of the poisonous water would not die if he drank it.

 

[Debora123]

But God and science are 2 different things. God reads our intentions and can decide what to do with our souls according to His best judgement. Poison is poison and will always kill a person. By this analogy, a person who was invincibly ignorant of the poisonous water would not die if he drank it.

Correct.

God knows what is in your heart and what your intentions are. He will thus judge you accordingly.

 

[Nate13]

So the bottom line is: conscience is worthless and doesn’t matter at all. Whenever. We are faced with a moral dilemma that has not been clearly pronounced upon by the Church, we need only ask ourselves “What would the Church tell me to do?” and just do that.

Except that’s not what the catechism says. The catechism says that God speaks directly to us through our conscience, that conscience is sacred, and that although it can sometimes. E erroneous, we condemn ourselves if we do not follow it.

Haha no the point of it was that an objective truth always out rules a subjective one. When there is no obvious objective truth on a matter we do the best we can with our subjective one.

For example there is no objective truth that says if you are making $50,000 a year you are financially stable enough to have X amount of kids. Its a matter of conscience for us to ascertain how many kids we are actually able to support on that salary. Its also our duty to inform that conscience so as to ensure we are making informed choices based in reality with consideration for what God wants.

You should also realize the importance of natural law. If natural law did not exist then anyone who had never heard of Christianity and what God taught could not be held accountable for their sins and could never commit a mortal sin. This is not the case however because natural law is written on the hearts of men and there is no excuse for not knowing that murder among other things is wrong. If you do not believe in natural law then you must believe that all the people throughout history who never heard the Word of God will eventually be in Heaven since by that belief they would never be able to commit a mortal sin.

Except that’s not what the catechism says. The catechism says that God speaks directly to us through our conscience, that conscience is sacred, and that although it can sometimes. E erroneous, we condemn ourselves if we do not follow it.

Please provide a quote from the Catechism. Your basically saying that God will condemn me if I choose not to murder someone if my conscience was telling me to murder them.

 

[LaSainte]

Please direct us to a post in a thread to support your claim. You cannot just throw up unsubstantiated assertions.

Ummm, you were actually a part of one of the threads thistle:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599533&highlight=mortal+sin+conscience

And your own quote:
“However, if you think something is of grave matter when in reality it is of venial matter and you go ahead and commit the act then you have committed a mortal sin because thinking it is of grave matter satisfies the first condition.”