Conscience question

[Nate13]

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

Nope not even close. Do a search on the forum and that might get you started of learning about it. I suggest reading the words of our past and current pope though in understanding not only what natural law is, but how it works in concert with divine revelation.

On a side note I think we can all gain some perspective by reading this quote by Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.

“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing” that the Post said Pelosi “insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.”

I always appreciate when Pelosi apologizes on behalf of Catholics (needs palm to forehead smile)

 

[Nate13]

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

No it was to make sure you could tell I was being sarcastic Women are always right though, and if you have an inkling that they might not be its best just to go along anyways. Essentially they are always right

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

I think the proper term is inerrancy rather than infallibility (the latter being restricted to certain papal statements in certain circumstances).

(Just being nit-picky here. I get your drift. )

 

[Elizabeth502]

Women are always right though, and if you have an inkling that they might not be its best just to go along anyways.

Wise man.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Nope not even close. Do a search on the forum and that might get you started of learning about it. I suggest reading the words of our past and current pope though in understanding not only what natural law is, but how it works in concert with divine revelation.

On a side note I think we can all gain some perspective by reading this quote by Nancy Pelosi:

I always appreciate when Pelosi apologizes on behalf of Catholics (needs palm to forehead smile)

Are you saying that natural laws are equal to God’s laws?
Nature = God?
Please, don’t take me wrong, I am not arguing, I am trying to understand and use common ground for discussion.

Edit: Just to clarify, natural laws are a subset of God’s laws in my eyes.

 

[Bookcat]

There are various ways that a Teaching of the Church can be infallible…(not that they are all we are to accept of course…)

An article on Infallibility: cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=149

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[sw85]

Hi VonDerTann, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

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.

No, as robots have no free will. Man does.

It would be more appropriate to say that Catholics ought to be slaves – slaves to God. (Actually slavery is not quite the appropriate term, either, as slavery is involuntary and we are given free will that we may freely will to know, love, and follow God. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a better term). I know this does not resonate with our Satanic zeitgeist which insists on its autonomy and its rights and on indulging all its passions without judgment or consequence, but such it is.

b. OK, let’s follow the word of God. That comes from, presumably, Scripture, rather than a teaching Church.

The Church was established by Christ, and this was related through Scripture, so whatever route you wish to go, you wind up back at square one: obedience, indeed servitude, to the will of God.

But at any rate it is worth asking “Why did Christ establish the Church?” Because He recognized man’s need for authority – because authority plays a central role in the organization of man’s life. This is as true of his social life (i.e., his family, his work, his society) as it is of his ethical life.

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.

I am making the opposite point, actually – that to the extent “conscience” exists at all, it lay in following the will of God as revealed through reason and revelation and as expressed by the Church which He has established and protected from error.

"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…

Obeying the Church IS obeying Christ, as He established it to tend to His flock. There is a useful essay on the necessity of authority in man’s moral life; I don’t have a link handy but if you Google “The Conservative Vision of Authority,” you’ll find it.

“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.

Note that I said I object to its usage in the present Catechism. The propagation of “conscience thinking” (rather than duty-based thinking) has contributed substantially to the moral collapse of the Church. Everyone who rebels against the Church’s magisterium has done so on the basis of “conscience.”

Given that the Church ITSELF is not using “conscience” in the more widely understood Protestant manner (“whatever I intuit the good to be and damn objective reality”), it would be better for them to clarify their meaning by NOT using the term conscience.

I have not insulted any dissenters, by the way, and I’d appreciate not being accused of such. Harshly rebuking obstinate rebels and unrepentant sinners is not insulting.

“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.”

I am obviously speaking hyperbolically, but yes, it is worth questioning why people never in “conscience” question any other teaching that follows from the exact same moral theology that yields up prohibitions on masturbation, sodomy, murder, etc.

 

[sw85]

Continued from the previous post…

“…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.

Several months ago I penned a long post outlining in brief the philosophical basis of the Church’s teachings on contraception. This included a review of classical essentialism, teleological realism, and deontological ethics. I even demonstrated how these concepts yield up a coherent Christian ethics that furnish the basis for ALL of the Church’s moral teachings – not merely contraception but ALL of its prohibitions, injunctions, and prescriptions – so that questioning the validity of the logic as it applies to contraception is literally questioning all of the Church’s moral teachings in their entirety.

The response was an appalling reaction on the part of dissenters. The whole thread quickly became a demonstration in Protestant solipsism along the lines of “I don’t get it so it must not make sense so it must not be binding on me.” I don’t recall if LaSainte read or posted in it but I know several other dissenters who have posted in this thread did. The reaction cannot be described as anything other than willful (and thereby borderline malicious) ignorance. I grew frustrated with such obstinacy.

I have not bothered trying to explain the Church’s philosophy since then, since the will to disbelieve is invulnerable to any rational penetration. How do you reason with someone who actually thinks they’re smarter than the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas? My argument now is simply that if you can’t even understand the philosophical basis for the Church’s teachings, you have absolutely zero business declaring them wrong and using this declaration as a basis for disobedience.

“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.

No one demands “blind” obedience. The rationale for the Church’s teachings are out there for everyone to see; I have time and time again recommended some relatively easy books that relate the Church’s rich intellectual tradition and demonstrated how they apply to matters of every moral import, such as human sexuality (such as Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition or Aquinas). Anyone who is blind is blind either by willful ignorance (by refusing to do their homework) or else ineptitude (by inability to understand it). Neither is a sound basis for rejecting the legitimate authority of the Church and setting one’s own sovereignty up against the bride of Christ.

“…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.

A lot of people are corrupted by the consequentialist and democratic spirit of the present age. I’m not going to disguise what the Church requires of them just to appeal to their leftist sensibilities; I would rather ALL Catholics be honest about what they believe and make their stand accordingly. This is, as I said, an explicitly authoritarian religion; the Bible is soaked through with authoritarian imagery of crowns, thrones, robes, kings and kingdoms, mothers and fathers and Father and Lord.

For the record, these threads ALWAYS devolve to “obey or get out” because all other appeals fail – and because we get tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.
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.

(1) Again, no one is demanding “blind” submission. What is being demanded is submission qua submission. Whether you submit because you are convinced by the rational merits of the Church’s teachings (as I am and as I wish others would be) or because you cannot understand them but know that the Church alone is protected from error is of no interest me.

(2) Yes, Islam is all about blind submission. This is necessarily so since Islam is a voluntarist and fideist faith. Catholicism is not – it is intellectualist and rationalist. As I said, there is no reason in Catholicism to submit “blindly” except to stupidity – but there is NEVER a reason NOT to respect the teachings of the Church.

Why should I object to Islam, by the way? Its falseness lay in the falseness of its scriptures and its prophets, not in its willingness to submit to them. As Peter Kreeft said, Muslims “are often more loyal to their half-Christ than we are to our whole Christ, and live more godly lives following their fallible scriptures and their fallible prophet than we do following our infallible Scriptures and our infallible Prophet.” We could learn a thing or two from their piety; there’s a reason they are ascendent on the world stage while Catholics abort and contracept their way to demographic collapse.

 

[sw85]

Finally:

VonDerTann:

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.

It does not allow conscience to override the one true moral law. What you are saying is erroneous and contrary to Catechism. Conscience MUST be molded in accordance with the natural law and the teachings of the Church, and the only way to so mold it is by cultivating the practice of obedience. We have no traffic with the Protestant innovation that “conscience” overrides everything.

 

[sw85]

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

Do you know what “natural law” is? Natural law is the law inscribed on the heart of man – the law arising from his nature which God has ordained for Him. No one can override it but God Himself, when he explicitly commands us to do otherwise.

You should do your homework about moral theology before making borderline heretical statements such as that natural law is inapplicable.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Do you know what “natural law” is? Natural law is the law inscribed on the heart of man – the law arising from his nature which God has ordained for Him. No one can override it but God Himself, when he explicitly commands us to do otherwise.

You should do your homework about moral theology before making borderline heretical statements such as that natural law is inapplicable.

Is self sacrifice, giving up your life, a natural law?

 

[LaSainte]

Finally:

It does not allow conscience to override the one true moral law. What you are saying is erroneous and contrary to Catechism. Conscience MUST be molded in accordance with the natural law and the teachings of the Church, and the only way to so mold it is by cultivating the practice of obedience. We have no traffic with the Protestant innovation that “conscience” overrides everything.

So the only way to mold your conscience is by going against it until it becomes second nature? That works for vice too you know.

 

[Bookcat]

What is to happen as Christians??

"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…”

"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. "

–Pope Benedict XVI

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603650&postcount=135

then

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603658&postcount=137

then

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603663&postcount=138

 

[LaSainte]

Is self sacrifice, giving up your life, a natural law?

Natural law is one of the most bizarre and frustrating concepts I know of. Basically everything has a nature or a function that is knowable, and to go against that nature or function constitutes sin. Sex is meant for procreation, so to use it in another way or subvert its purpose goes against the natural law and is a sin. Unfortunately, when and where it applies is sketchy. Eating for example, is meant to nourish our bodies, and yet, it is not immoral for me to take pills that cause most of the calories in food to be passed out of my body without absorbing them. I would think this would go against natural law as well, since it subverts the primary purpose of eating, but apparently not.

 

[Nate13]

Are you saying that natural laws are equal to God’s laws?
Nature = God?
Please, don’t take me wrong, I am not arguing, I am trying to understand and use common ground for discussion.

Edit: Just to clarify, natural laws are a subset of God’s laws in my eyes.

I’m not going to try and explain natural law to you here, because it would just further derail the thread. Do a search on the forum and read the Pope’s words. I understand you don’t understand what natural law is or how it fits in the picture but you should know that the 5 years John Paul II spent putting together the theology of the body rely on a heavy understanding of it.

 

[Nate13]

Natural law is one of the most bizarre and frustrating concepts I know of. Basically everything has a nature or a function that is knowable, and to go against that nature or function constitutes sin. Sex is meant for procreation, so to use it in another way or subvert its purpose goes against the natural law and is a sin. Unfortunately, when and where it applies is sketchy. Eating for example, is meant to nourish our bodies, and yet, it is not immoral for me to take pills that cause most of the calories in food to be passed out of my body without absorbing them. I would think this would go against natural law as well, but apparently not.

The thread creator went there so I will respond Is there not a difference between nourishing our bodies and over-indulging? If you were taking a pill that caused the proper amount of nourishment to reach your body that would be in accordance with natural law. If you were just taking the pills though so you could over indulge that would be immoral. The point of the pill would be to bring something back in order with its proper function.

Sex is for procreation and for unitive bonding. To have sex in a way that frustrates either purpose is immoral. Rape can be incredibly procreative, but it is not unitive thus why we can know it is immoral without even knowing of divine revelation.

The eating example you gave only appears to go against natural law because you are only looking at the surface.

It would be like if I told you we would generate the most tax revenue in the U.S by taxing everyone 100%. You would be like that’s true, but your forgetting the fact that probably almost no one would pay that, every one would rebel, and you would extinguish incentive for business thus lowering the amount of income even out there to tax.

 

[searching04]

Hi VonDerTann, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

No, as robots have no free will. Man does.

It would be more appropriate to say that Catholics ought to be slaves – slaves to God. (Actually slavery is not quite the appropriate term, either, as slavery is involuntary and we are given free will that we may freely will to know, love, and follow God. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a better term). I know this does not resonate with our Satanic zeitgeist which insists on its autonomy and its rights and on indulging all its passions without judgment or consequence, but such it is.

The Church was established by Christ, and this was related through Scripture, so whatever route you wish to go, you wind up back at square one: obedience, indeed servitude, to the will of God.

But at any rate it is worth asking “Why did Christ establish the Church?” Because He recognized man’s need for authority – because authority plays a central role in the organization of man’s life. This is as true of his social life (i.e., his family, his work, his society) as it is of his ethical life.

I am making the opposite point, actually – that to the extent “conscience” exists at all, it lay in following the will of God as revealed through reason and revelation and as expressed by the Church which He has established and protected from error.

Obeying the Church IS obeying Christ, as He established it to tend to His flock. There is a useful essay on the necessity of authority in man’s moral life; I don’t have a link handy but if you Google “The Conservative Vision of Authority,” you’ll find it.

Note that I said I object to its usage in the present Catechism. The propagation of “conscience thinking” (rather than duty-based thinking) has contributed substantially to the moral collapse of the Church. Everyone who rebels against the Church’s magisterium has done so on the basis of “conscience.”

Given that the Church ITSELF is not using “conscience” in the more widely understood Protestant manner (“whatever I intuit the good to be and damn objective reality”), it would be better for them to clarify their meaning by NOT using the term conscience.

I have not insulted any dissenters, by the way, and I’d appreciate not being accused of such. Harshly rebuking obstinate rebels and unrepentant sinners is not insulting.

Damn, and I was trying to stay away.

Yeah, you are insulting. Did it again above. Kind of like sexual harrassment - it is determined by the person on the receiving end, not the one doing it. You don’t get to determine whether you are insulting or not.

You’ve asked people why they are here; absolutely have hinted people should go be Protestants; and have specifically said that those who disagree and question have no right to post.

Obstinate rebels and unrepentant sinners? Really? Do have any idea whatosever what posters here do in their lives? No, you don’t, not in the least.You assume, and you know what that means, besides being arrogant. You can have all the education in the world (do you?), but it does not mean people will agree with you or that you know them. Obviously, I disagree on things, but I follow them. So am I an unrepentant sinner? Point is you wouldn’t know.

I can only imagine Jesus Christ telling people to go away because they question and disagree. Or do you think He’d keep working with them? Might want to consider that.

I am obviously speaking hyperbolically, but yes, it is worth questioning why people never in “conscience” question any other teaching that follows from the exact same moral theology that yields up prohibitions on masturbation, sodomy, murder, etc.

How do you know? Murder, obviously. Sodomy? People can argue definitions. Masturbation? Can be part of the whole debate on contraception. I’m sure their are other examples. Point is not everything is equal.

Have to ask - you posted above that obeying the church (blindly?) is obeying Christ, and God revealed himself and therefore the church is unerring. So where do our morals and conscience come into play - or do they - with the pope calling for a world bank and seeming to support occupy wall street? Are we supposed to fall in line and not question because he is the pope? It is about morals; he is the head of the church and is supposed to be unerring on issues of morals. So…?

People will always question and disagree. You can post and quote and posture all day. And yes, you can be insulting in your words, all because people are holding their ground like you hold yours. This just may be an area where people agree to disagree. There will always be some.

Oh, and yes, I’m reading all the posts…

 

[Nate13]

How do you know? Murder, obviously. Sodomy? People can argue definitions. Masturbation? Can be part of the whole debate on contraception. I’m sure their are other examples. Point is not everything is equal.

Have to ask - you posted above that obeying the church (blindly?) is obeying Christ, and God revealed himself and therefore the church is unerring. So where do our morals and conscience come into play - or do they - with the pope calling for a world bank and seeming to support occupy wall street? Are we supposed to fall in line and not question because he is the pope? It is about morals; he is the head of the church and is supposed to be unerring on issues of morals. So…?

People will always question and disagree. You can post and quote and posture all day. And yes, you can be insulting in your words, all because people are holding their ground like you hold yours. This just may be an area where people agree to disagree. There will always be some.

Oh, and yes, I’m reading all the posts…

Ah searching04, the only poster more insulting than sw85, coupled with unbridled vitriol that I have yet to see matched At least he has an excuse because he is a recent convert and caught on fire with Catholicism

For the record you are free to insult me as much as you want as long as it doesn’t get in the way of us having a discussion, and the vitriol is amusing.

 

[Bookcat]

What is to happen as Christians??

"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…”**

"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.** "

–Pope Benedict XVI

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603650&postcount=135

then

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603658&postcount=137

then

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8603663&postcount=138