Conscience question

[Jaaanosik]

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.

The Holy Spirit that we invite to us through prayers, meditations, fasting, … will eliminate that devil sitting on the shoulder.

 

[Bookcat]

I will note these two quotes too for readers (not to be directed at any person…but something to bear in mind in our examine)

“Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” Catechism 1859

and

“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is. If God does not exist, perhaps I have to seek refuge in these lies, because there is no one who can forgive me; no one who is the true criterion. Yet my encounter with God awakens my conscience in such a way that it no longer aims at self-justification, and is no longer a mere reflection of me and those of my contemporaries who shape my thinking, but it becomes a capacity for listening to the Good itself.”

–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salvi

 

[marine13]

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 think 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 think 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…

Your examples would ordinarily be a sin whether or not the person was correct or not. What I am more concerned about is if someone does something that they believe is a sin when it is not. Just because someone believes an action is offensive to God or could break His commandments does not mean that it actually does.

One could believe that wearing clashing colors is offensive to God and do it intentionally to spite Him but I don’t see how that person’s mis-information could entirely remove them from God’s grace. I would still consider it sinful to intentionally attempt to offend God but I still don’t see it being a grave issue and therefore a mortal sin.

 

[Bookcat]

Your examples would ordinarily be a sin whether or not the person was correct or not. What I am more concerned about is if someone does something that they believe is a sin when it is not. Just because someone believes an action is offensive to God or could break His commandments does not mean that it actually does.

One could believe that wearing clashing colors is offensive to God and do it intentionally to spite Him but I don’t see how that person’s mis-information could entirely remove them from God’s grace. I would still consider it sinful to intentionally attempt to offend God but I still don’t see it being a grave issue and therefore a mortal sin.

Actually in both cases…drinking water that is not poisoned and not going to Mass on a non-Holy Day are neither sinful.

The key is the person is willing to commit a mortal sin (they need not seek to offend God or intend it). He is willing to do what they believe is grave matter…and do so thus with full knowledge and complete consent.

As to your second part --it is best not to use unreasonable examples to discuss these questions for one is in such cases dealing with a person who has other difficulties which need to be attended to professionally or needs regular confessor to sort things out.

 

[LaSainte]

Your examples would ordinarily be a sin whether or not the person was correct or not. What I am more concerned about is if someone does something that they believe is a sin when it is not. Just because someone believes an action is offensive to God or could break His commandments does not mean that it actually does.

One could believe that wearing clashing colors is offensive to God and do it intentionally to spite Him but I don’t see how that person’s mis-information could entirely remove them from God’s grace. I would still consider it sinful to intentionally attempt to offend God but I still don’t see it being a grave issue and therefore a mortal sin.

So the question is, is it MORE sinful for a person to deliberatly set out to OFFEND God (or at least, be willing to do so) by wearing purple socks (thinking that it is a mortal sin when it is not), or for a person to deliberately set out to PLEASE God by doing what they truly and prayerfully believe to be His will (even though it goes against Church teaching) but which turns out to be gravely wrong?

Are they both mortal sins? Neither? One or the other?

 

[ahs]

These two quotes are from our Holy Father.

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.

The emphasis is a WELL-INFORMED conscience. And let us not conveniently overlook the summarizing portion of what you just quoted:

"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). "

Note that the psalmist writes “my unknown guilt”. In other words, even though one may not know or think “A” is a sin, one is guillty of the sin if committed, even if that guilt is unknown. An, as our Pope states above, one would also be guilty of the neglect of one’s being which made one “deaf to the internal promptings of truth.”

 

[ahs]

So the question is, is it MORE sinful for a person to deliberatly set out to OFFEND God (or at least, be willing to do so) by wearing purple socks (thinking that it is a mortal sin when it is not), or for a person to deliberately set out to PLEASE God by doing what they truly and prayerfully believe to be His will (even though it goes against Church teaching) but which turns out to be gravely wrong?

Are they both mortal sins? Neither? One or the other?

It is more sinful to deliberately attempt to offend God. The person who offends God unknowingly commits a venial sin because mortal sin requires full knowledge. Though, that venial sin may still be grave matter.

For those with scruples, please do not be led to beleive that purple socks offend God.

 

[marine13]

Actually in both cases…drinking water that is not poisoned and not going to Mass on a non-Holy Day are neither sinful. They became sinful due to the persons error in conscience.

The key is the person is willing to commit a mortal sin (they need not seek to offend God or intend it). He is willing to do what they believe is grave matter…and do so thus with full knowledge and complete consent.

As to your second part --it is best not to use unreasonable examples to discuss these questions for one is in such cases dealing with a person who has other difficulties which need to be attended to professionally or needs regular confessor to sort things out.

Hence I used more ordinary examples.

But attempting suicide and missing mass are sins. Being mistaken about whether or not there is poison in the drink or if the day is actually a day of obligation does not really matter because the intent was to doing something that we have actually been told is a sin. I used an “unreasonable example” to make the point that I don’t see how someone can simply create a mortal sin by believing it to be so.

 

[Bookcat]

So the question is, is it MORE sinful for a person to deliberatly set out to OFFEND God (or at least, be willing to do so) by wearing purple socks (thinking that it is a mortal sin when it is not), or for a person to deliberately set out to PLEASE God by doing what they truly and prayerfully believe to be His will (even though it goes against Church teaching) but which turns out to be gravely wrong?

What the person is to do is submit themselves to the Objective teaching of the Church and correct their wild error. And to get other professional help…(and perhaps a fashion advisor)

 

[Bookcat]

But attempting suicide and missing mass are sins. Being mistaken about whether or not there is poison in the drink or if the day is actually a day of obligation does not really matter because the intent was to doing something that we have actually been told is a sin. I used an “unreasonable example” to make the point that I don’t see how someone can simply create a mortal sin by believing it to be so.

Those who think it is sinful to wear a particular color would seem to be not in the boat of an ordinary conscience. They need professional counsel…and are really not the subject here.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The emphasis is a WELL-INFORMED conscience. And let us not conveniently overlook the summarizing portion of what you just quoted:

"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). "

Note that the psalmist writes “my unknown guilt”. In other words, even though one may not know or think “A” is a sin, one is guillty of the sin if committed, even if that guilt is unknown. An, as our Pope states above, one would also be guilty of the neglect of one’s being which made one “deaf to the internal promptings of truth.”

If you ARE NOT deaf to the internal promptings,
and you do not feel any guilt,
and you are in error - unknown guilt,
you ask for forgiveness.

“Free me from my unknown guilt”

… still you are bind to follow your conscience.

 

[marine13]

Those who think it is sinful to wear a particular color would seem to be not in the boat of an ordinary conscience. They need professional counsel…and are really not the subject here.

Fair enough… Thanks for the engaging discussion!

 

[ahs]

If you ARE NOT deaf to the internal promptings,
and you do not feel any guilt,
and you are in error - unknown guilt,
you ask for forgiveness.

“Free me from my unknown guilt”

… still you are bind to follow your conscience.

…if it is a well informed conscience, and your conscience does not put you in opposition to objective Truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599229&postcount=148

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8598199&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599332&postcount=150

 

[Jaaanosik]

…if it is a well informed conscience, and your conscience does not put you in opposition to objective Truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599229&postcount=148

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8598199&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599332&postcount=150

From CCC 2039:

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

Is “should” equal to “must”?

 

[LaSainte]

…if it is a well informed conscience, and your conscience does not put you in opposition to objective Truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599229&postcount=148

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8598199&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599332&postcount=150

The point here is that the person clearly doesn’t believe they are acting against objective moral truth simply because the Church may claim that it is. This person would think the Church is flat-out wrong. You can say “but it’s not, the Church is infallible” all day long, but that doesn’t change the fact that this person doesn’t see it that way.

Of course if this person believed the Church was always infallible in everything, there would not be a conflict of conscience.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…if it is a well informed conscience, and your conscience does not put you in opposition to objective Truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599229&postcount=148

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8598199&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8599332&postcount=150

The whole linked article comes down to this:

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).

Having said that we are going to be judged how we formed the erroneous conscience.

 

[Bookcat]

I will note these two quotes too for readers (not to be directed at any person…but something to bear in mind in our examine)

“Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” Catechism 1859

and

“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is. If God does not exist, perhaps I have to seek refuge in these lies, because there is no one who can forgive me; no one who is the true criterion. Yet my encounter with God awakens my conscience in such a way that it no longer aims at self-justification, and is no longer a mere reflection of me and those of my contemporaries who shape my thinking, but it becomes a capacity for listening to the Good itself.”

–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salvi

 

[Jaaanosik]

I will note these two quotes too for readers (not to be directed at any person…but something to bear in mind in our examine)

“Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” Catechism 1859

and

“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is. If God does not exist, perhaps I have to seek refuge in these lies, because there is no one who can forgive me; no one who is the true criterion. Yet my encounter with God awakens my conscience in such a way that it no longer aims at self-justification, and is no longer a mere reflection of me and those of my contemporaries who shape my thinking, but it becomes a capacity for listening to the Good itself.”

–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salvi

Correct.
It’s a serious business if you end up disagreeing with the Magisterium.
You better make sure you formed your conscience well.
Pray to The Holy Spirit for help!
Seek all the help possible, your guardian angel, prayers, meditation, fasting, …

 

[Bookcat]

Correct.
It’s a serious business if you end up disagreeing with the Magisterium.
You better make sure you formed your conscience well.
Pray to The Holy Spirit for help!
Seek all the help possible, your guardian angel, prayers, meditation, fasting, …

If some event takes place where one comes to that “certain practical judgment” that if I do not do X here and now I will commit a mortal sin …

as I noted above ones conflict is “within” ones conscience.

It is not a conflict of conscience vs the Church. Ones conscience is in conflict with itself. For the reality of the Church is part of ones conscience. It is not an external force…

 

[Bookcat]

Here is a good article that detail about Catholics and Conscience…a must read:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=109