Conscience question

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSainte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaaanosik said:
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?
Click to expand...
First he can relax because the Church doesn’t teach that every act must be “procreative”. Each act must be “ordered toward procreation”. These mean very different things. The sexual act is unitive and procreative in nature, but each act will not necessarily lead to procreation (ie. times when the wife is not fertile). But, regardless of that, each act must be performed in a way that is unitive (the spouses fully present the entirety of their persons to each other) and “ordered toward procreation”…even if that act is not “procreative”. The couple cannot purposefully do anything to remove the unitive or procreative aspects from any individual act. (But, this is a WHOLE new topic. )

So, with that in mind, he resolves the conflict by forming his conscience to objective Truth, which is revealed via Christ to the Holy Church and presented to the faithful in many ways…such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
(part one above…last page of posts…read it first)

“Paul makes this process of “recasting” even clearer by saying that we become new if we transform our way of thinking. What has been introduced here with “way of thinking” is the Greek term “nous”. It is a complex word. It may be translated as “spirit”, “sentiments”, “reason”, and precisely, also by “way of thinking”. Thus our reason must become new. This surprises us. We might have expected instead that this would have concerned some attitude: what we should change in our behaviour. But no: renewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality all our thought must change from its foundations. The reasoning of the former person, the common way of thinking is usually directed to possession, well-being, influence, success, fame and so forth. Yet in this way its scope is too limited. Thus, in the final analysis, one’s “self” remains the centre of the world. We must learn to think more profoundly. St Paul tells us what this means in the second part of the sentence: it is necessary to learn to understand God’s will, so that it may shape our own will. This is in order that we ourselves may desire what God desires, because we recognize that what God wants is the beautiful and the good. It is therefore a question of a turning point in our fundamental spiritual orientation. God must enter into the horizon of our thought: what he wants and the way in which he conceived of the world and of me. We must learn to share in the thinking and the will of Jesus Christ. It is then that we will be new people in whom a new world emerges.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

(Continued)
 
"Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful. "

– Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html
 
ahs said:
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.
Click to expand...
He is not selfish. All he has on his mind is to please his wife. That’s not selfish.
Joe and his wife both agree and see love making as the biggest intimate sign of their love.
They have a serious reasons to delay having babies.
Their new understanding of the Church’s teaching goes against their long formed conscience.
 
Jaaanosik said:
He is not selfish. All he has on his mind is to please his wife. That’s not selfish.
Joe and his wife both agree and see love making as the biggest intimate sign of their love.
They have a serious reasons to delay having babies.
Their new understanding of the Church’s teaching goes against their long formed conscience.
Click to expand...
Oh, well then they will go to posts 135, 137,and 138 and then form their conscience to fit the objective Truth taught by Christ via His Church on earth. 🙂
 
ahs said:
First he can relax because the Church doesn’t teach that every act must be “procreative”. Each act must be “ordered toward procreation”. These mean very different things. The sexual act is unitive and procreative in nature, but each act will not necessarily lead to procreation (ie. times when the wife is not fertile). But, regardless of that, each act must be performed in a way that is unitive (the spouses fully present the entirety of their persons to each other) and “ordered toward procreation”…even if that act is not “procreative”. The couple cannot purposefully do anything to remove the unitive or procreative aspects from any individual act. (But, this is a WHOLE new topic. )

So, with that in mind, he resolves the conflict by forming his conscience to objective Truth, which is revealed via Christ to the Holy Church and presented to the faithful in many ways…such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Good, that’s the subject of the discussion. He is trying to resolve it according to the Church’s teaching.
After years of aligning his conscience according to the Magisterium still does not comprehend why each sexual act is suppose include procreative aspect.

Let’s add another twist.
Joe is no 35 and has 3 kids and really can not afford to support another baby.
Joe and his wife have only each other to lean on and still having sex is the biggest intimate sign of their love.
Who is going to tell him that he is not pro life/procreative when he has three kids?
He feels even stronger that procreative aspect of sex is meant over a long time and not in each individual act.
 
LaSainte said:
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.
Click to expand...
The conscience is erring in point number 1. If it is truly a life or death issue, abstinence is the only recourse. Number 2 is also flawed because everything in your power (in love) should include abstinence.

NFP, condoms, CI and Comdoms, even used simulteaneously, do not guarantee pregnancy avoidance.

You’re not describing an entirely well formed (at least not perfectly so) conscience.
 
Jaaanosik, you ask ask as to your hypothetical Joe:

“Who is going to tell him that he is not pro life/procreative when he has three kids?”

Are you kidding? The easy obvious answer is, “lots of people on this thread!”

I should be ashamed. And yet…I’m not. In fact, I am amused.
 
Rence said:
Yeah, I am betting she would agree with what I posted as my understanding of what her posts said. And they are very different from what you think her posts have said. But if I am incorrect, I hope she forgives me and corrects me because I’ve tried very hard to understand the messages she’s been trying to convey and acknowledge them.
Click to expand...
No you expounded on what I posted before and included much more. Most of what you added had to do with this false idea of a battle between her conscience and the Church. The reason this does not properly describe the battle is because part of her conscience is telling her the right thing to do is to follow the Church and the other part is telling her she its ok to use contraception in some cases. This is a conflict of conscience, and I don’t know how many more times you need me to explain this. She has been following her conscience all this time and continues to do so. If she wasn’t, she would be doing as she said in her original post; condemning herself.
 
Bookcat said:
Actually she is correct.

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.

(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)
Click to expand...
NO it is not. It must be actaul grave matter (actual sin) AND be done with the full consent of the will. it is not a n either/or, it is an AND.

Now it might be a sin if it were done as a means to thumb your nose at God. But you can ride ponies all day, thinking it is wrong, and not mortally sin.
 
Jaaanosik said:
My bad, to love his wife by pleasing her sexually and not being procreative.
Click to expand...
Jaaanosik said:
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?
Click to expand...
Are you conflating conscience with childhood conditioning?

If a man’s “conscience” is urging him to sin, then his conscience is defective and should be ignored in that particular regard. This is what I’ve been saying all along.
 
Bookcat said:
Actually she is correct.

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.

(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)
Click to expand...
It still does not meet the condition of being grave matter. it must meet all 3 conditions. It is not grave matter just because one believes it is grave matter.
 
OK, being serious now.

IMHO, Mr. Russell’s post is correct.

Moreover, I don’t see how anyone can really argue with it. Considering that many poster’s positions can be characterized as “you sin when you follow your conscience instead of the Church when the 2 are at odds, and the Church defines your questionable conduct as sinful,” it defies explanation how those same folks can logically argue with the proposition that “you do not sin when you follow your conscience instead of the Church when the 2 are at odds and the Church defines your conduct as not sinful.”
 
jamesrussell49 said:
NO it is not. It must be actaul grave matter (actual sin) AND be done with the full consent of the will. it is not a n either/or, it is an AND.
Click to expand...
I have explained various times in this thread how in Catholic Moral Theology such is grave matter.

(and I later suggested not using unreasonable examples…for they do not usually effect those with a normal conscience etc…)

And other aspects of the question (such as those who can be in a different boat such as those with many with scupulosity etc…how they are to follow their confessor etc)
 
VonDerTann said:
Jaaanosik, you ask ask as to your hypothetical Joe:

“Who is going to tell him that he is not pro life/procreative when he has three kids?”

Are you kidding? The easy obvious answer is, “lots of people on this thread!”

I should be ashamed. And yet…I’m not. In fact, I am amused.
Click to expand...
OK, but what are these voices compare to his conscience?
That’s what we are discussing here.
He is bind by his conscience.
 
sw85 said:
Are you conflating conscience with childhood conditioning?

If a man’s “conscience” is urging him to sin, then his conscience is defective and should be ignored in that particular regard. This is what I’ve been saying all along.
Click to expand...
… and thus incapable to recognize that if one’s conscience does not tell man that’s the sin there is nothing to ignore.
 
Jaaanosik, I agree with you.

BTW, IMHO another problem with, “follow your conscience as long as it conforms to what the Church teaches!” is the following: Eventually it provides no latitude for ANY dissent from anything “the Church” “teaches” regardless of who or what is doing the teaching and what subject is being taught about. For teaching purposes, is “the Church” the Pope? The Magisterium? The CCC? The pastor? My guess is that there are a lot of folks out there who view it as heretical to disagree with anything said by the parish priest about next week’s bingo.
 
Bookcat said:
I have explained various times in this thread how in Catholic Moral Theology such is grave matter.

(and I later suggested not using unreasonable examples…for they do not usually effect those with a normal conscience etc…)

And other aspects of the question (such as those who can be in a different boat such as those with many with scupulosity etc…how they are to follow their confessor etc)
Click to expand...
If it is not objectively wrong in the first place, it cannot be grave matter to begin with.

Therefore, even if you do (whatever it is) with full knowledge and consent of the will, it has not met all three conditions. You just cant make a two sided triangle. Some other factor would have to enter in first… for instance another sin (other than the one you erroneously thought was a sin), as I stated elsewhere; perhaps you did it to spite God. In this case, Spiteing God was the sin, not “riding the pony” (to keep it simple here). All you did was change from something that was not grave matter (riding the pony) to something that was grave matter (hating God)… NOW you have a triangle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top