Conscience question

[Bookcat]

The subjective sin of not obeying what they thought God wanted from them? How does this work when a person does not even know of God, or believes in multiple gods? If they failed to do a grave matter concerning what they believed one of those multiple gods told them to do would they have committed a mortal sin subjectively?

God will judge those outside. I (like Paul) am speaking of those inside. Those who are Christians in communion with the Church.

There are many things that goes into all sorts of possibilities in terms of those outside the Church …such is a different discussion.

 

[Nate13]

Yep.

Here is the entirety of where you are quoting from in the Catechism.

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."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
**

You have a conflicting conscience. You believe God directly is telling you one thing, but is telling you another through His infallible Church. Either way you cause a conflict with your conscience. You are left where you at which is to trust the objective teaching of the Church over your subjective one.

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.”

 

[Bookcat]

How?

A Catholic is to yes form their conscience…is to live as a Christian…to live according to the teachings of the Church. They are well to be a Christian…a Catholic.

Now could it happen that a Catholic by their erroneous conscience – judges that here and now if they do not do X they will commit a mortal sin -that they must do X here and now (though they know that the Church teaches that doing X is a mortal sin). That this is their “certain” “practical” (not speculative) “judgment of conscience” “here and now” ?

Yes such is “possible”.

But is one to readily believe that they are “faced with such personally”?

No. For one can easily take such as “an excuse” for oneself …too readily tell oneself “oh thats me” when it is in reality not…which can actually lead to greater guilt.

And what if that which is “possible” above does “happen”?..is this a conflict between the Teachings of the Church and that persons conscience?

No.

Remember that the Teachings of the Church are not some “external” element but

are “part” of the very conscience of the Catholic.

It is not a conflict here between the Teaching of the Church and her conscience.

It is a conflict within her conscience. It is a conflict “inside” conscience itself.

Her conscience is divided against* itself*. The person is divided against herself.

And that person needs to not “leave it that way” but work to heal …to overcome her error…to heal the split conscience…to conform herself to the Teachings of the Church …she needs to work for the “renewal” of her mind…as Paul and Pope Benedict XVI note… to receive the invitation…to take up your cross and follow me…to deny oneself…to freely adhere to Christ --to the Teachings of his Church.

In him and thus in his Church is true life.

 

[Castello]

So then if I think subjectively that it would be a mortal sin to both withhold sex from my husband and to not use condoms, NFP and coitus interruptus for whatever reason, then what should I do (hypothetical-this is not the case with me)? If I follow my conscience, I am supposedly OBJECTIVELY committing a mortal sin. If I follow the Church, I am SUBJECTIVELY committing a mortal sin.

Damned if you do…etc.

Please, find a good priest and get some spiritual counsel.

 

[Nate13]

Remember that the Teachings of the Church are not some “external” element but

are “part” of the very conscience of the Catholic.

It is not a conflict here between the teaching of the Church and her conscience.

It is a conflict within her conscience. It is a conflict “inside” conscience itself.

Her conscience is divided against* itself*. The person is divided against herself.

And that person needs to not “leave it that way” but work to heal …to overcome her error…to heal the split conscience…to conform herself to the Teachings of the Church …she needs to work for the “renewal” of her mind…as Paul and Pope Benedict XVI note… to receive the invitation to* come follow me*…to take up your cross and follow me…to deny oneself…to freely adhere to Christ --to the Teachings of his Church.

In him and thus in his Church is true life.

Exactly. You would not be committing a subjective mortal sin Le Sainte. In order to commit a subjective mortal sin you have to be able to not know your doing it until afterwards haha Your conscience chooses in favor of the argument with the most weight. The Church’s objective Truth always outweighs a subjective one.

 

[sw85]

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."47

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.

How can this be reconciled with passages elsewhere that tell us to just submit to church authority. If my conscience is telling me that such would be a grave error, then who wins?

Conscience is not simply whatever you feel to be right: it is an intuitive apprehension of the good, and the adherence of the will to the pursuit of the good.

If you “feel” that that which is good is actually evil (and/or vice-versa), this is not conscience speaking – it is conscience *failing *to speak, because it is deadened by self-interest, unreason, ignorance, or whatever.

Hence why the Church says simultaneously (without contradicting itself) that you must obey your conscience AND that you must obey the teachings of the Church: you cannot do the former without doing the latter.

 

[LaSainte]

A Catholic is to yes form their conscience…is to live as a Christian…to live according to the teachings of the Church. They are well to be a Christian…a Catholic.

Now could it happen that a Catholic by their erroneous conscience – judges that here and now if they do not do X they will commit a mortal sin -that they must do X here and now (though they know that the Church teaches that doing X is a mortal sin). That this is their “certain” “practical” (not speculative) “judgment of conscience” “here and now” ?

Yes such is “possible”.

But is one to readily believe that they are “faced with such personally”?

No. For one can easily take such as “an excuse” for oneself …too readily tell oneself “oh thats me” when it is in reality not…which can actually lead to greater guilt.

And what if that which is “possible” above does “happen”?..is this a conflict between the Teachings of the Church and that persons conscience?

No.

Remember that the Teachings of the Church are not some “external” element but

are “part” of the very conscience of the Catholic.

It is not a conflict here between the Teaching of the Church and her conscience.

It is a conflict within her conscience. It is a conflict “inside” conscience itself.

Her conscience is divided against* itself*. The person is divided against herself.

And that person needs to not “leave it that way” but work to heal …to overcome her error…to heal the split conscience…to conform herself to the Teachings of the Church …she needs to work for the “renewal” of her mind…as Paul and Pope Benedict XVI note… to receive the invitation…to take up your cross and follow me…to deny oneself…to freely adhere to Christ --to the Teachings of his Church.

In him and thus in his Church is true life.

Interesting. Thank you.

 

[LaSainte]

Conscience is not simply whatever you feel to be right: it is an intuitive apprehension of the good, and the adherence of the will to the pursuit of the good.

If you “feel” that that which is good is actually evil (and/or vice-versa), this is not conscience speaking – it is conscience *failing *to speak, because it is deadened by self-interest, unreason, ignorance, or whatever.

Hence why the Church says simultaneously (without contradicting itself) that you must obey your conscience AND that you must obey the teachings of the Church: you cannot do the former without doing the latter.

Easy for you to say apparently. I don’t base these things simply on what “feels right”. I have worked harder on reconciling my conscience with the Church on this matter than you would believe.

 

[sw85]

Easy for you to say apparently. I don’t base these things simply on what “feels right”. I have worked harder on reconciling my conscience with the Church on this matter than you would believe.

I don’t doubt that. Obviously the fact that you are assenting to teachings about which you have doubts is evidence of this.

I’m just clarifying what you regard as a contradiction in Church teaching – a contradiction that arises entirely from an improper conception of the conscience.

 

[thistle]

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.”

That is referring to an actual sin, not a piece of meat.
It is when a person thinks a sin of venial matter is actually a sin of grave matter then it satisfies the condition of grave matter. This has absolutely nothing to do with choosing a piece of meat and saying that a sin of grave matter. Come on. Use your head!

 

[Nate13]

Objectively the act is not sinful.

Subjectively the person has* committed a mortal sin*.

Would God treat a subjective mortal sin the same way He would treat an objective mortal sin?

Also, was my assumption correct that by definition a subjective mortal sin could only be subjective assuming the person committing the act at the time didn’t know it was subjective?

 

[LaSainte]

That is referring to an actual sin, not a piece of meat.
It is when a person thinks a sin of venial matter is actually a sin of grave matter then it satisfies the condition of grave matter. This has absolutely nothing to do with choosing a piece of meat and saying that a sin of grave matter. Come on. Use your head!

Please. There is no difference whatsoever. In both cases, something becomes a mortal sin simply based on the fact that that one INTENDS to commit a mortal sin. Whether the action was originally a venial sin or even no sin at all is of no concern. Something can either “become” a mortal sin based upon intent or it cannot.

 

[thistle]

Please. There is no difference whatsoever. In both cases, something becomes a mortal sin simply based on the fact that that one INTENDS to commit a mortal sin. Whether the action was originally a venial sin or even no sin at all is of no concern. Something can either “become” a mortal sin based upon intent or it cannot.

You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident.

And please don’t try to tell me what I meant in my post. I was talking exclusively about a person committing a sin and knowing it was a sin but while it was a sin of venial matter if he thought it was of grave matter then the grave matter condition is satisfied.

I sincerely hope you are not trying to suggest, for example, that if I think putting on my left sock first instead of my right is a sin of grave matter then if I do that its a mortal sin. There is nothing in Church doctrine about your socks so your conscience cannot contradict a Church teaching on this.

 

[LaSainte]

You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident.

And please don’t try to tell me what I meant in my post. I was talking exclusively about a person committing a sin and knowing it was a sin but while it was a sin of venial matter if he thought it was of grave matter then the grave matter condition is satisfied.

I sincerely hope you are not trying to suggest, for example, that if I think putting on my left sock first instead of my right is a sin of grave matter then if I do that its a mortal sin. There is nothing in Church doctrine about your socks so your conscience cannot contradict a Church teaching on this.

I am not trying to tell you what you meant. What I am saying is that whether it is a venial sin or no sin at all, it is the willingness and intention to commit what one believes to be a mortal sin that constitutes grave matter.

I will quote Bookcat here, since he is our resident moral theologian

“Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.”

 

[Bookcat]

I am not trying to tell you what you meant. What I am saying is that whether it is a venial sin or no sin at all, it is the willingness and intention to commit what one believes to be a mortal sin that constitutes grave matter.

I will quote Bookcat here, since he is our resident moral theologian

“Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.”

Humm…I did not know I was a moral theologian nor that I lived here But if the later is the case I need more room for my books…

I want to add here if I may the other part of that post for the sake of some readers:

(note though that those who are scupulous *need to not fret *for they know they are so …and know they need to follow their confessor etc and act contrary to their scuples …and that they do no sin thereby)

 

[Jaaanosik]

These two quotes are from our Holy Father.

For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be a papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience.

On this level, the level of judgment (conscientia in the narrower sense), it can be said that even the erroneous conscience binds. This statement is completely intelligible from the rational tradition of scholasticism. No one may act against his convictions, as Saint Paul had already said (Rom 14:23). But the fact that the conviction a person has come to certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonization of subjectivity. It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: “Free me from my unknown guilt” (Ps 19:13).

The Magisterium stands on well informed consciences inspired by The Holy Spirit of all the people that contributed to the Church’s teaching.

Denying that is denying the foundation of the Magisterium.

 

[marine13]

I am not trying to tell you what you meant. What I am saying is that whether it is a venial sin or no sin at all, it is the willingness and intention to commit what one believes to be a mortal sin that constitutes grave matter.

I will quote Bookcat here, since he is our resident moral theologian

“Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.”

Hold on… I might be missing something but this doesn’t make sense to me. If one believes something to be a mortal sin when it is actually venial or not a sin at all would lead me to believe that they don’t have “full” knowledge of the issue because they are incorrect. Therefore, the full knowledge condition is not satisfied.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I just don’t see how incorrect/imperfect knowledge about a potential sinful matter can equal full knowledge.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hold on… I might be missing something but this doesn’t make sense to me. If one believes something to be a mortal sin when it is actually venial or not a sin at all would lead me to believe that they don’t have “full” knowledge of the issue because they are incorrect. Therefore, the full knowledge condition is not satisfied.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I just don’t see how incorrect/imperfect knowledge about a potential sinful matter can equal full knowledge.

I agree with this. Some people suffer from OCD. They perhaps might avoid stepping on a crack to not “break their mother’s back” Say one day they are mad at mother and step on a whole slew of cracks.

I don’t believe this would be a mortal sin, because obviously the person has a deluded sense of reality.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

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.

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.

Correct.

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

No it is not.

That is why there are 3 conditions to mortal sin.

If someone doesn’t know something is a sin, or doesn’t have ill intentions, that person will be judged differently than someone with bad intentions who knew that what they were doing was wrong.

I think the key here lies in two points:

First, that it would be very difficult to understand that something is a mortal sin if one has a disagreement with the Church that such IS a mortal sin. That alone may mitigate one’s culpability for the situation that is being discussed, namely, contraception as a mortal sin.

Second, as has been correctly pointed out, one can act with what one considers a truly well-formed conscience (education, prayer, council, etc, etc) and still have one’s conscience be in error.

Does that make the conscience worthless? Of course not.

What hasn’t been touched on (much) in this thread is how one can be, even with one’s best intentions to follow Christ and his Church, blinded by sin. Is it really one’s conscience talking, or are those nagging doubts from that devil sitting on your other shoulder?

Sometimes, it’s not an easy discernment to make. Best advise is to avoid doing or not doing whatever behavior to do or not do and continue to pray, educate one’s self, seek council, etc. That may not make the decision any easier, but Christ himself never said it would be easy to follow him. Discernment can be a real struggle.

 

[Bookcat]

Hold on… I might be missing something but this doesn’t make sense to me. If one believes something to be a mortal sin when it is actually venial or not a sin at all would lead me to believe that they don’t have “full” knowledge of the issue because they are incorrect. Therefore, the full knowledge condition is not satisfied.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I just don’t see how incorrect/imperfect knowledge about a potential sinful matter can equal full knowledge.

Yes the “full knowledge” is satisfied. “Full knowledge” does not mean that one’s knowledge needs to be correct.

The person knows that they believe that X is a mortal sin. They knowingly with go ahead and do it with deliberate consent. They are willing to commit a mortal sin.

If I believe that this glass of water is poisoned and I thereby with full knowledge and deliberate consent drink it …I have committed a mortal sin even though it is just spring water.

Or if I believe today is a Holy Day of Obligation and with full knowledge and deliberate consent choose without the excusing reason to not go to Mass…I commit a mortal sin even though it is not a Holy Day.

Now as some have pointed out there are persons among us who have various difficulties such as OCD or scupulosity …they *know *that they have this difficulty. That comes into play here. They need to (as I noted above) follow their confessor and etc and the principles given them to deal with this difficulty. They can be in a very different boat one can say…