Conscience question

[Rence]

So you think LaSainte is making incorrect assumptions about HERSELF?

Um…yeah…that’s what I thought too, which is why I didn’t comment about it. LaSainte knows what her stumbling blocks are and why – and has shared them with us. She knows what she means, and she knows what the conflict is – and has shared them with us. She knows the conflict is what she believes versus what the Church teaches and has said so many times. If one thinks the ‘problems’ are anything but what she has said they are, then they’re not being fair to her by purposely disregarding her own words about herself.

 

[sw85]

It certainly does matter. If a person is not convinced that what the church declares is necessarily “good” then why on earth should they submit to it? That’s like telling someone to just go ahead and follow Islam because it holds the only truth. If a person doesn’t believe it, why should they follow it?

If someone does not find the argument for infallibility to be convincing, then to submit to everything the Church says would be folly.

So it is not the one teaching you are struggling with but the principle of the legitimacy of the Church’s teaching authority altogether.

I can’t help you there. I certainly have nothing to add to the testimony of the apostles, which I believe stands on its own. So what are you here for, then? We cannot hope to convince you of what you will to disbelieve.

We’re not going to sit here and point out loopholes in the Catechism for you to exploit, if that’s what you’re fishing for. Your options are to assent to the teaching, live in sin, or quit the Church and become a Protestant or something. Whatever you decide to do, please stop publicly undercutting the Church’s magisterium. She is under siege enough as it is.

I love this. The Church says conscience reigns supreme and is sacred, God within us, etc. then it says “Oh by the way, WE are your conscience, anything else is from the devil”.

The only choices we have a right to make for ourselves are so inconsequential that they don’t matter anyway.

You are approaching this in the wrong way, with this kind of rights-thinking. Christianity is a duty-based religion. Your rights derive from those duties, meaning you have a right to do good but no right to do evil.

 

[catharina]

So it is not the one teaching you are struggling with but the principle of the legitimacy of the Church’s teaching authority altogether.

Very much the fact - and she seems to be seeking justification for acting sinfully.

I can’t help you there. I certainly have nothing to add to the testimony of the apostles, which I believe stands on its own. So what are you here for, then? We cannot hope to convince you of what you will to disbelieve.

We’re not going to sit here and point out loopholes in the Catechism for you to exploit, if that’s what you’re fishing for. Your options are to assent to the teaching, live in sin, or quit the Church and become a Protestant or something. Whatever you decide to do, please stop publicly undercutting the Church’s magisterium. She is under siege enough as it is.

You are approaching this in the wrong way, with this kind of rights-thinking. Christianity is a duty-based religion. Your rights derive from those duties, meaning you have a right to do good but no right to do evil.

We have the right (and duty) to serve GOD.
Within His Church, we are taught TRUTH.
Take it or leave it is the bottom line.

 

[searching04]

I just started reading at the last page because I saw LaSainte’s screen-name. Absolutely love her posts. Straight up, says it/asks it like it is.

But once again, if you question the church’s teachings, you are not allowed; you are told to go somewhere else. Thanks SW85 (“why are you here?”, “go be a Protestant”, “quit undermining the magesterium” (like that could happen)).

I’ve been told by another poster in another thread that I’m being scandalous; I was “given an infraction” by a moderator for being uncharitable by calling out that poster for her statements; I was told to re-evaluate why I am here. So I’m thinking I’ll do just that, go somewhere else maybe, not bother being here.

SW85 and others make it perfectly clear:

Questioning, disagreeing Catholics need not be here, need not bother. Only those who wish to fall in line without questioning and by totally agreeing.

Adios.

 

[fix]

What disturbed me was the notion that it harbored, that faith is a burden which can hardly be borne and which no doubt was intended only for stronger natures—faith almost as a kind of punishment, in any case, an imposition not easily coped with. According to this view, faith would not make salvation easier but harder. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be a real grace, the normal way to salvation. Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth. It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth. Man would be more at home in the dark than in the light. Faith would not be the good gift of the good God but instead an affliction. If this were the state of affairs, how could faith give rise to joy? …

Would it not be better to spare them the truth or even keep them from it? In the last few decades, notions of this sort have discernibly crippled the disposition to evangelize. The one who sees the faith as a heavy burden or as a moral imposition is unable to invite others to believe. Rather he lets them be, in the putative freedom of their good consciences.

…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. …

…Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth. When the psalmist in anticipation of Jesus’ view of sin and justice pleads for liberation from unconscious guilt, he points to the following relation. Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

One’s conscience never trumps Truth. Conscience is not supreme. Truth is supreme.

I hope no one leaves the Church. That would be a mistake. One effective way to open ourselves to the truth is through complete abandonment to Jesus through Mary. Mary will never lead you in the wrong direction.

 

[sw85]

I just started reading at the last page because I saw LaSainte’s screen-name. Absolutely love her posts. Straight up, says it/asks it like it is.

But once again, if you question the church’s teachings, you are not allowed; you are told to go somewhere else. Thanks SW85 (“why are you here?”, “go be a Protestant”, “quit undermining the magesterium” (like that could happen)).

By “why are you here?”, I was asking what she hoped to accomplish by harping on the issue constantly – since appeals to reason, Catechism, and Scriptures have all failed to convince her, it is clearly the case that she has made up her mind and no one can change it. That was obviously the context in which I was asking it.

I did not tell her to go be a Protestant. In fact I said explicitly I would rather she assent to the Church’s teachings and remain a part of it. I simply pointed out that the only alternative to this is to live in sin or else to repudiate the Church.

As for “quit undercutting the magisterium,” well, yes, there’s no explanation there. Do quit. You’ve no right to do that.

ISW85 and others make it perfectly clear:

Questioning, disagreeing Catholics need not be here, need not bother. Only those who wish to fall in line without questioning and by totally agreeing.

Adios.

Of course anyone can question Church teachings – provided they do so in the spirit of clarification and of good faith.

*Disagreeing *Catholics (that is, ones who have resolved already that the Church’s teachings are false or even that it has no authority to teach) are not in fact entitled to express their disagreements. Such disagreements are necessarily born of misunderstanding and falsehood – and no one has a right to speak error.

I don’t know where you get this idea that the Church is for free-thinkers. It isn’t. This is an explicitly and openly authoritarian religion. We worship God the Father, not God the friendly stranger; Christ the king, not Christ the kitten. Christ did not say “Follow your conscience,” he said “Follow me.” And he entrusted the keys to Heaven to Peter that the gates of Hell may not prevail against His Church – not to you.

I’m not trying to drive you out of the Church or anything, I’m simply telling you what the faith requires of you (what God Himself requires of you), and that is submission. You don’t get to decide what it means to act morally – you only get to decide whether or not you do.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Let me try another scenario.
Joe grew up in a good happy Catholic family.
His parents taught him that sex is a beautiful sacred thing within marriage. Wait till you are married you’ll be rewarded for your patients.
Seeing how happy his parents were he understood that altruistic self giving sex when one partner makes the other happy is one of the most amazing ways how a couple can show and express love to each other.
That’s how his conscience was formed for over 20 years and he waits.

Now enter his marriage. Joe loves his wife very much and she loves him back very much as well. They want to show love each other in the most intimate way.
Oops, you can not if you are not procreative.

Joe does not understand why it is like that. His conscience, that was formed for such a long time in a different way, is in conflict with his new understanding of the Church’s teaching. Why he is forbidden to love his wife? An intimate sex is to him the biggest and the most important way how to show affection and love to his lovely wife and she feels the same way. His conscience tells him love your wife.
Please, advise Joe.

 

[sw85]

Let me try another scenario.
Joe grew up in a good happy Catholic family.
His parents taught him that sex is a beautiful sacred thing within marriage. Wait till you are married you’ll be rewarded for your patients.
Seeing how happy his parents were he understood that altruistic self giving sex when one partner makes the other happy is one of the most amazing ways how a couple can show and express love to each other.
That’s how his conscience was formed for over 20 years and he waits.

Now enter his marriage. Joe loves his wife very much and she loves him back very much as well. They want to show love each other in the most intimate way.**
Oops, you can not if you are not procreative. **

Joe does not understand why it is like that. His conscience, that was formed for such a long time in a different way, is in conflict with his new understanding of the Church’s teaching. Why he is forbidden to love his wife? An intimate sex is to him the biggest and the most important way how to show affection and love to his lovely wife and she feels the same way. His conscience tells him love your wife.
Please, advise Joe.

The bolded part is a non sequitur.

How does the fact that the sexual act must be ordered toward procreation in any way mitigate the love inherent in the act?

 

[Jaaanosik]

The bolded part is a non sequitur.

How does the fact that the sexual act must be ordered toward procreation in any way mitigate the love inherent in the act?

Why?

 

[ahs]

Please, advise Joe.

You’d advise Joe the same way you’d advise any other Catholic who wants to live according to Truth and has a question about sexual morality. Tell him to talk to a Priest. Then, show him where to find a copy of Humanae Vitae, the CCC, and Theology of the Body. Tell him these are great starting points and to let you know if he has any further questions for clarification after he’s read them.

 

[sw85]

Why?

The question below my statement explains what is nonsensical about it – nothing about the requirement that the sexual act be ordered toward procreation diminishes the expression of love inherent to it.

So I’m assuming you left out an important detail or something…?

 

[Jaaanosik]

You’d advise Joe the same way you’d advise any other Catholic who wants to live according to Truth and has a question about sexual morality. Tell him to talk to a Priest. Then, show him where to find a copy of Humanae Vitae, the CCC, and Theology of the Body. Tell him these are great starting points and to let you know if he has any further questions for clarification after he’s read them.

Let’s assume he is doing it for a few years and still his conscience tells him he is supposed to love his wife.

 

[Bookcat]

Bl. Pope John Paul II noted basically that contraceptive relations were contrary to love.

But look…I should add too that this thread is not about contraception.

Can we please not let this thread turn into such. Thanks…

 

[Jaaanosik]

Bl. Pope John Paul II noted basically that contraceptive relations were contrary to love.

But look…I should add too that this thread is not about contraception.

Can we please not let this thread turn into such. Thanks…

Please, re-read the OP.

 

[Castello]

Let me try another scenario.
Joe grew up in a good happy Catholic family.
His parents taught him that sex is a beautiful sacred thing within marriage. Wait till you are married you’ll be rewarded for your patients.
Seeing how happy his parents were he understood that altruistic self giving sex when one partner makes the other happy is one of the most amazing ways how a couple can show and express love to each other.
That’s how his conscience was formed for over 20 years and he waits.

Now enter his marriage. Joe loves his wife very much and she loves him back very much as well. They want to show love each other in the most intimate way.
Oops, you can not if you are not procreative.

Joe does not understand why it is like that. His conscience, that was formed for such a long time in a different way, is in conflict with his new understanding of the Church’s teaching. Why he is forbidden to love his wife? An intimate sex is to him the biggest and the most important way how to show affection and love to his lovely wife and she feels the same way. His conscience tells him love your wife.
Please, advise Joe.

Joe learns that married life means accepting children lovingly and you go ahead and have relations. If there is a serious reason to delay children, you prayerfully discern that.

 

[ahs]

Let’s assume he is doing it for a few years and still his conscience tells him he is supposed to love his wife.

Huh? You completely lost me here. How is “his conscience tells him he is supposed to love his wife” seen as a problem?

Joe learns that married life means accepting children lovingly and you go ahead and have relations. If there is a serious reason to delay children, you prayerfully discern that.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Huh? You completely lost me here. How is “his conscience tells him he is supposed to love his wife” seen as a problem?

My bad, to love his wife by pleasing her sexually and not being procreative.

 

[ahs]

My bad, to love his wife by pleasing her sexually and not being procreative.

Having sex without being procreative can mean lots of things. If it’s non-procreative because she is simply not fertile when they are engaging in the act, no big deal. If it’s non-procreative because they deliberately frustrate the procreative power of the particular act (they contracept with ABC), it is not an act of love, but of selfishness. If he studies the Catechism and the writings of the Popes and Church Fathers, he will see this and realize his error and then he will proceed to what Castello posted…one would hope.

In other words, he will re-form his ill-formed conscience.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The question below my statement explains what is nonsensical about it – nothing about the requirement that the sexual act be ordered toward procreation diminishes the expression of love inherent to it.

So I’m assuming you left out an important detail or something…?

Have a look from a different angle.
Joe’s new understanding of the Church’s teaching tells him that he is not suppose to have sex with his wife unless it is unitive and procreative. That is in conflict with his long formed conscience. How is he going to resolve that conflict?

 

[Bookcat]

What is needed?

“In the Letter to the Romans, this second part begins in chapter 12, in which the Apostle briefly sums up the essential nucleus of Christian existence in the first two verses. What does St Paul say to us in that passage? First of all he affirms, as a fundamental thing, that a new way of venerating God began with Christ a new form of worship. It consists in the fact that the living person himself becomes adoration, “sacrifice”, even in his own body. It is no longer things that are offered to God. It is our very existence that must become praise of God. But how does this happen? In the second verse we are given the answer: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God…” (12: 2). The two decisive words of this verse are “transformed” and “renewal”. We must become new people, transformed into a new mode of existence. The world is always in search of novelty because, rightly, it is always dissatisfied with concrete reality. Paul tells us: the world cannot be renewed without new people. Only if there are new people will there also be a new world, a renewed and better world. In the beginning is the renewal of the human being. This subsequently applies to every individual. Only if we ourselves become new does the world become new. This also means that it is not enough to adapt to the current situation. The Apostle exhorts us to non-conformism. In our Letter he says: we should not submit to the logic of our time. We shall return to this point, reflecting on the second text on which I wish to meditate with you this evening. The Apostle’s “no” is clear and also convincing for anyone who observes the “logic” of our world. But to become new how can this be done? Are we really capable of it? With his words on becoming new, Paul alludes to his own conversion: to his encounter with the Risen Christ, an encounter of which, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians he says: “if anyone is in Christ, he is in a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (5: 17). This encounter with Christ was so overwhelming for him that he said of it: “I… died…” (Gal 2: 19; cf. Rm 6). He became new, another, because he no longer lived for himself and by virtue of himself, but for Christ and in him. In the course of the years, however, he also saw that this process of renewal and transformation continues throughout life. We become new if we let ourselves be grasped and shaped by the new Man, Jesus Christ. He is the new Man par excellence. In him the new human existence became reality and we can truly become new if we deliver ourselves into his hands and let ourselves be moulded by him.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

(continued)