Conscience question

[Jaaanosik]

Jiminy Cricket is not the best guide to moral theology.

If your conscience tells you do not question the Magisterium then you have to follow it.

 

[jamesrussell49]

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.

I think we are getting into a misunderstanding here. Each act should be unitive and procreative “in nature”; so yes, each act, does not have to create a child. BUT, every act should carry the possibility of creating one.

Secondly, I have 4 children and before that I had 1,2, and 3. The 4th one did not cost us so much extra. If you can afford three, you can afford more. If you can’t afford 1, you probably can’t afford to be married either (MHO). This is the same argument used for abortion (hope our consciences are clear about that at least - or do I hope for too much??).

third misunderstanding; pro-life/procreative is not numbered by the total of your offspring. A barren couple can be more “open to life” than a couple who achives pregnancy when ever they look at each other, but continually frustrate it by contraception and abortion.

(he steps down from the soap box and walks away…)

 

[Bookcat]

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 three 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.

Let us leave aside the unreasonable examples which are not going to bother a normal conscience and only muddy the issue by their unreasonable nature.

Being willing to do something that one believes is grave matter --is itself a grave matter.

Yes the thing that I did that another who knew better would tell me was not a grave sin yes is not objectively grave matter in itself…it may be not sinful at all or it may be venial matter but objectively it is not grave matter.

But due to the erroneous conscience I mistakenly judge that X is a grave matter.

I believing this …and having full knowledge give deliberate consent (full consent) for whatever reason (one does not have to hate God…or seek to offend Him). I commit a mortal sin.

This is the age old understanding in Catholic Moral Theology.

(again note though that those who are scupulous (etc) 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)

 

[LaSainte]

LaSainte, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t mean to speak for you, and if I’m wrong please correct me, it’s not my intention to assume what you mean, but this is what I get out of your posts from this thread: You feel trapped and constrained by the rules of the Church regarding contraception because they go against your conscience, and your conscience screams at you that the rules of the Church regarding contraception are harmful to married couples and cause people a lot of pain and suffering, you don’t believe the teaching is correct, and resent the teachings, the rationales and reasons for the teaching don’t make sense to you. You resent, and find offensive, being told to let the Church do the thinking for you and disregard what your conscience tells you because if your conscience isn’t in alignment with the Church, then it’s wrong. However, you were born and raised Catholic and the Catholic Church is home to you. You don’t believe that the Church is correct all the time, but it’s correct most of the time. This is one of the times you believe they are incorrect. You wish you never learned of these teachings, so that you wouldn’t feel burdened by them. And you wish you were never Catholic because you feel enslaved by the Church by emotional bonds and threats of eternal damnation due to your upbringing as a Catholic. But the horse has already been let out of the barn, and you were born into Catholicism. You suspect you’d be fine just ignoring the teachings, like most others do, but you don’t have the confidence to combat the fire and brimstone threats of the Church and would rather err on the side of caution, even if that means you were right all along. You haven’t found another religion yet that is like the Church but isn’t. And you wish they were more compassionate towards Catholics so that they wouldn’t burden them with unreasonable expectations and make their lives miserable. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you…

Yes. I also resent not being taught about magisterial infallIbility at all in 12 years of Catholic school CCD, and RCIA. Had I been told about this at all, I may not even have gone through confirmation, or maybe i would e so indoctrinated by now that i would agree with eveythig the Church says I was always taught about the supremacy of a studied conscience, and now I know that’s a bunch of nonsense.

Conscience reigns supreme provided that it agrees with the Church, which is the same thing as saying “You’re free to make your own decisions as long as they never. Inflict with Church teaching.” Check your brain at the door.

I resent this “one size fits all” attitude. I feel violated in a way, being told that I have no choice when it comes to reproducing-being told that I better have “grave” reasons before even attempting NFP, which isn’t that effective anyway. How’s this for a serious reason-I’m not a brood mare. Here’s another one-I don’t want to be a hundred when my kids graduate pre-school. Here’s another one-I don’t like babies. Here’s another one-I have many other things instant to do with my life than scraping by with 8 kids who will never go on a vacation, go to college, or see the world-all things that I truly value as something I want to provide for my children. I also think my kids deserve a mother and father who aren’t exhausted and miserable. Call me crazy.

And when you complain, all you get is,“Sad now, happy in Heaven. Suck it up.”

On top of that, my husband and my mom and pretty much everyone I know also thinks these rules are arbitrary and I’m stuck trying to defend something I have no confidence in.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[sw85]

OK, but what are these voices compare to his conscience?
That’s what we are discussing here.
He is bind by his conscience.

No, he is bound to follow the word and will of God.

Conscience is the intuitive apprehension of these things and the adherence of the will to their dictates. Where reason does not intuit the good or the will does not adhere to it, conscience is defective – perhaps not even operative at all.

Bear in mind, Christ did not say “Follow your conscience.” He said “Follow me.”

This is what I find so especially obnoxious about the talk of “conscience” in the present Catechism. The merest use of the term is pregnant with the spirit of Protestantism.

Why is it, by the way, that people’s “conscience” only acts up when it comes to sexual sins? Few ever declare that “conscience” is urging them to overindulge in food or withhold aid from the homeless. And it never occurs to them to question whether their “conscience” is not hopelessly contaminated with self-interest?

Which is precisely the reason these threads get so tiresome. How does one argue with someone who has cloaked themselves in the armor of “conscience” and thereby rendered themselves invincible to every appeal to reason, tradition, Scripture, and Catechism? What can penetrate the will to disbelieve?

The saturation of heresy and rebellion in any thread like this always approaches 1 as the page count approaches infinity. I wish the mods would ban contraception threads like they’ve done certain others and spare us all the fruitless bother.

… and thus incapable to recognize that if one’s conscience does not tell man that’s the sin there is nothing to ignore.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, he is bound to follow the word and will of God.

Conscience is the intuitive apprehension of these things and the adherence of the will to their dictates. Where reason does not intuit the good or the will does not adhere to it, conscience is defective – perhaps not even operative at all.

Bear in mind, Christ did not say “Follow your conscience.” He said “Follow me.”

This is what I find so especially obnoxious about the talk of “conscience” in the present Catechism. The merest use of the term is pregnant with the spirit of Protestantism.

Why is it, by the way, that people’s “conscience” only acts up when it comes to sexual sins? Few ever declare that “conscience” is urging them to overindulge in food or withhold aid from the homeless. And it never occurs to them to question whether their “conscience” is not hopelessly contaminated with self-interest?

Which is precisely the reason these threads get so tiresome. How does one argue with someone who has cloaked themselves in the armor of “conscience” and thereby rendered themselves invincible to every appeal to reason, tradition, Scripture, and Catechism? What can penetrate the will to disbelieve?

The saturation of heresy and rebellion in any thread like this always approaches 1 as the page count approaches infinity. I wish the mods would ban contraception threads like they’ve done certain others and spare us all the fruitless bother.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

Really?

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry SW85, I must take issue with much of what you write:

You write as to following one’s conscience, “No, he is bound to follow the word and will of God…Conscience is the intuitive apprehension of these things and the adherence of the will to their dictates. Where reason does not intuit the good or the will does not adhere to it, conscience is defective – perhaps not even operative at all.”
–This says a lot:
a. It appears to remove all role of conscience from humanity, which is completely at odds with the CCC, which recgniozes the role of the conscience in moral judgments. That attitude makes Catholics into robots.
b. OK, let’s follow the word of God. That comes from, presumably, Scripture, rather than a teaching Church.
c. Let’s also follow the will of God…but your post, unless I misread, can be interpreted as “following the will of God lies in following your conscience,” which I suspect is not what you were trying to say.

"Bear in mind, Christ did not say “Follow your conscience.” He said “‘Follow me.’”
–By this logic we don’t need a Church at all; we can just follow Jesus. If you really mean “Jesus meant follow me an my Church,” well, He didn’t say that…unless he was speaking metaphorically, of course…

“This is what I find so especially obnoxious about the talk of “conscience” in the present Catechism. The merest use of the term is pregnant with the spirit of Protestantism.”
–So what? For that matter, I find the constant insults hurled at dissenters eqally obnoxious, but then, to paraphrase Harry Truman, I’ve met a lot of Christians who weren’t very Christian.

“Why is it, by the way, that people’s “conscience” only acts up when it comes to sexual sins?”
–I don’t get that at all from this board. I do, however, suspect that contraception is probably the single greatest area of conscience-based disagreement with Church teaching. I think there are many reasons for that, but that does not mean that “conscience only acts up over sexual sins.”

“…Which is precisely the reason these threads get so tiresome.”
—They’re tiresome in part because those who defend Church teaching come up with such uncompelling answers, all of which boil down to, “do it because the Church says so.” If the answers were more satisfactory the disagreements wouldn’t arise.

“How does one argue with someone who has cloaked themselves in the armor of “conscience”…”
—The same way one argues with someone who has cloaked themselves in parroting regurgitated words of the Catechism while a) being wholly unable to engage in any sort of reasoning beyond “do what the Church tells you or else!” while also b) telling everyone who disarees they are sinning, likely mortally; and c) demanding blind obedience to the Church no matter what it says.
–For that matter…who’s “arguing” with you? I see dissenters gettting argued at.

“…and thereby rendered themselves invincible to every appeal to reason, tradition, Scripture, and Catechism?”
–I see no appeals to “reason” in 11 pages of this thread, and very very little appeal to Scripture. What you call “appeals to tradition and the CCC” boil down to “you MUST agree, or else,” and, as you can tell from the pushback you get, lot of people find that answer, shall we say, unsatisfactory.

Now, gotta say this: A while back you advocated Catholicism as essentially blind submission to the will of God. Funny, I think you can easily substute “Islam” in that sentence. Point is, I think one reason Catholicism is so superior to other faiths is that it does allow for individual consciences, and efforts to “squelch all dissent” just earns Catholics the stereotyping they sometimes justly deserve.

 

[VonDerTann]

BTW, LaSainte, I agree with and empathize with your last post.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I said it in the other thread so I just might repeat it here as well.

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 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.

 

[ahs]

…I feel violated in a way, being told that I have no choice when it comes to reproducing-being told that I better have “grave” reasons before even attempting NFP, which isn’t that effective anyway. How’s this for a serious reason-I’m not a brood mare. Here’s another one-I don’t want to be a hundred when my kids graduate pre-school. Here’s another one-I don’t like babies. Here’s another one-I have many other things instant to do with my life than scraping by with 8 kids who will never go on a vacation, go to college, or see the world-all things that I truly value as something I want to provide for my children. I also think my kids deserve a mother and father who aren’t exhausted and miserable. Call me crazy.

FWIW, any of those reasons could be “just reasons” to avoid for a time. It’s something you and your husband have to discern. The Church documents (which I recall you have read? ) explain this rather clearly.

On top of that, my husband and my mom and pretty much everyone I know also thinks these rules are arbitrary and I’m stuck trying to defend something I have no confidence in.

Does it really matter what they think, other than your husband? It’s really no one’s business is it…unless you make it someone’s business? And it’s not a matter of “arbitrary rules”. IF you want to defend it, defend it like this:

God gave us rules to live by. Those rules are the objective Truth. They are God’s rules, not mine. Who am I to go against them? Who am I to question God? Who am I to reject a Teaching of His Church on earth, to whom He gave the Keys to Heaven…the Church He established that I may share in His Glory? Am I not a servant of my God? Am I not a fool to question His motives or His reasons…He who is infinitely more wise than me?

 

[ahs]

I said it in the other thread so I just might repeat it here as well.

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 Holy Father:

Yes, and as was stated in that other thread as well, if you read the entire paper, he is talking about a conscience formed on objective Truth, not a conscience that we feel is right.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, and as was stated in that other thread as well, if you read the entire paper, he is talking about a conscience formed on objective Truth, not a conscience that we feel is right.

What is objective Truth?
How do you know somethig is an objective Truth?

Do you appreciate how the objective Truth and conscience are linked together?

 

[Nate13]

“…Which is precisely the reason these threads get so tiresome.”
—They’re tiresome in part because those who defend Church teaching come up with such uncompelling answers, all of which boil down to, “do it because the Church says so.” If the answers were more satisfactory the disagreements wouldn’t arise.

You have just missed out on the all the other threads this has been battled out on Personally its been hard to even participate in this discussion because we all seem to have a different idea of what “conscience” really means. Don’t you think it makes sense to quote the Catechism and other sources to set some prerequisites for the conversation? If we are going to argue can’t we at least be arguing about the same thing haha? Also please note the OP herself started out her post basing her entire argument on a quote from the Catechism.

“How does one argue with someone who has cloaked themselves in the armor of “conscience”…”
—The same way one argues with someone who has cloaked themselves in parroting regurgitated words of the Catechism while a) being wholly unable to engage in any sort of reasoning beyond “do what the Church tells you or else!” while also b) telling everyone who disarees they are sinning, likely mortally; and c) demanding blind obedience to the Church no matter what it says.
–For that matter…who’s “arguing” with you? I see dissenters gettting argued at.

We’ve been through the arguing back and forth. You also forget that every time an attempt is made to branch out away from the Catechism or other official sources then everyone cries foul and says “that’s not what the Church really says!” Thus it drags the thread back into posts from the Catechism and debates about “what the Church really meant”. Of course behind this all is the fact that the entire debate is just an attempt for someone to try and justify the position they already hold, and at all costs win the argument or at least drive it in so many different directions so that nothing can actually be concluded.

No one is demanding blind obedience. Rather it just seems incredibly illogical to me for someone to say " I believe the Church has it right on every issue except this one". Never mind that the teaching they disagree with is one of the few that has been around since the beginning and of which there was very little debate about until the 1900’s.

Now, gotta say this: A while back you advocated Catholicism as essentially blind submission to the will of God. Funny, I think you can easily substute “Islam” in that sentence. Point is, I think one reason Catholicism is so superior to other faiths is that it does allow for individual consciences, and efforts to “squelch all dissent” just earns Catholics the stereotyping they sometimes justly deserve.

Catholicism is based in reason. The contraception teaching is not given without reason, nor is anyone expected to believe it blindly. The Church came out and said contraception is wrong and always has been wrong AND here is why. Casti Canubi and Humanae Vitae are a testament to that. Most of the people who don’t understand the teaching also don’t understand natural law. Funny coincidence don’t you think?

 

[Jaaanosik]

^
Nate, Christians are above natural laws. Christians act according to God’s laws.
God is Love.

 

[LaSainte]

For what it’s worth, this isn’t the ONLY disagreement I have with the Church. It’s the one that affects me the most, although I do agree with most of what the Church says, and I especially believe in the Eucharist and apostolic succession.

People will ask how I can believe in anything the Church says if it is not infallible as an argument for infallibility. It’s quite simple. It is like a spousal relationship. I don’t see my husband as infallible, although I love him very much. I DO however, have 100% confidence in him in certain matters, namely: his willingness and ability to be faithful to me for life, his undying love for our children, and his willingness to protect us all with his life if need be as well as the knowledge that on the whole, everything he does is for our well-being and works toward the good of our family.

That being said, he will make mistakes. He will leave the toilet seat up, be late for dinner and occasionally lose his temper. He will sometimes act in his own self-interest in small matters, like when he wants to watch Survivorman and our son wants to watch Wonder Pets for the 5th time that day.

The point is, the fact that he sometimes makes mistakes on certain things does not in any way mean that I suddenly have to hire a private investigator to follow him around all day. I trust him 100% in the major things, in his love for us and his desire for our well-being and his faithfulness to our family. I see no conflict here.

My problem with this teaching really comes down to a problem with infallibility I suppose.

 

[Nate13]

For what it’s worth, this isn’t the ONLY disagreement I have with the Church. It’s the one that affects me the most, although I do agree with most of what the Church says, and I especially believe in the Eucharist and apostolic succession.

People will ask how I can believe in anything the Church says if it is not infallible as an argument for infallibility. It’s quite simple. It is like a spousal relationship. I don’t see my husband as infallible, although I love him very much. I DO however, have 100% confidence in him in certain matters, namely: his willingness and ability to be faithful to me for life, his undying love for our children, and his willingness to protect us all with his life if need be as well as the knowledge that on the whole, everything he does is for our well-being and works toward the good of our family.

That being said, he will make mistakes. He will leave the toilet seat up, be late for dinner and occasionally lose his temper. He will sometimes act in his own self-interest in small matters, like when he wants to watch Survivorman and our son wants to watch Wonder Pets for the 5th time that day.

The point is, the fact that he sometimes makes mistakes on certain things does not in any way mean that I suddenly have to hire a private investigator to follow him around all day. I trust him 100% in the major things, in his love for us and his desire for our well-being and his faithfulness to our family. I see no conflict here.

My problem with this teaching really comes down to a problem with infallibility I suppose.

Your in luck then because the Church is the woman in the Jesus-Church marriage so its Jesus who is the one who leaves up the toilet seat. The Church is right 100% of the time just as all women are

 

[Nate13]

^
Nate, Christians are above natural laws. Christians act according to God’s laws.
God is Love.

Where do you think natural law came from haha? Are you just proving my point by showing you don’t understand natural law either?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Where do you think natural law came from haha? Are you just proving my point by showing you don’t understand natural law either?

How would you describe self-preservation instinct. Is it a natural law?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Your in luck then because the Church is the woman in the Jesus-Church marriage so its Jesus who is the one who leaves up the toilet seat. The Church is right 100% of the time just as all women are

I assume that by the wink at the end you admit that women are not 100% right all the time.
Correct?

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

You may be confusing two things. (Or previous debaters on the subject may have been confusing two things?)

An intention or an interior thought may be gravely (mortally) sinful, even if not carried out. Thus, if I despise my neighbor so thoroughly that I harbor evil wishes upon him – especially of a serious nature (“hope he loses his house/job/wife,” “hope his sick child dies” , “hope he gets maimed in an accident”), then I have committed serious mortal sin, or sins, by even having such thoughts. (I’m sure you know that. )

And if I take it a step further by intending to harm him in some way (by activating my own wish for his harm), such as intending to lie to his wife about him, so that his wife will mistrust him – but I never carry out my intention – I nevertheless have sinned gravely, because sin encompasses “the heart.” I must confess that I allowed evil to penetrate my heart, poison my relationship with my neighbor, and compromise my friendship with God.