Conscience

[Janet_S]

Many Catholics believe there is nothing wrong with dissenting from a Church teaching (regarding faith and/or morals) as long as their conscience tells them it’s okay. Not only do they believe it is not wrong to dissent, they believe dissent from Church teaching is a fundamental right of each Catholic.

Some Catholics refer to this as the “primacy of conscience,” and, according to Catholics who believe this way, the judgment of their conscience is superior to the judgment of the Church.

I don’t believe the Church teaches the “primacy of conscience” as described above. If this were really true, each Catholic would be acting as his own Pope. And furthermore, the Church could never admonish any Catholic for any reason as long as he or she claims his conscience is his guiding force.

With that background about some interpretations of conscience I have seen on this forum, my question is this:

Which Church documents (papal encyclicals or ecumenical council documents for example) state explicitly that it is acceptable for a Catholic to form his or her conscience against the teachings of the Catholic Church?

I’m asking, because I’ve never been able to find one statement that supported “the primacy of conscience” as popularly believed and described above.

 

[wardrandolph]

Truth is not subjective.Truth is not my opinion.Truth is not “something”,as Father John Corapi states," truth is somebody,His name is Jesus Christ".Jesus instituted the church,gave her the unadulterated truth to teach.This is comforting because I dont have to wonder what is the truth or where I can get hold of the truth.Merry Christmas and may the Lord be with you.

 

[Francine_Peters]

Not only do they believe it is not wrong to dissent, they believe dissent from Church teaching is a fundamental right of each Catholic.

A mother will protect her cubs no matter what priestly justification is given to endanger them, even if he says it will bring them closer to Christ.

 

[thistle]

Many Catholics believe there is nothing wrong with dissenting from a Church teaching (regarding faith and/or morals) as long as their conscience tells them it’s okay. Not only do they believe it is not wrong to dissent, they believe dissent from Church teaching is a fundamental right of each Catholic.

Some Catholics refer to this as the “primacy of conscience,” and, according to Catholics who believe this way, the judgment of their conscience is superior to the judgment of the Church.

I don’t believe the Church teaches the “primacy of conscience” as described above. If this were really true, each Catholic would be acting as his own Pope. And furthermore, the Church could never admonish any Catholic for any reason as long as he or she claims his conscience is his guiding force.

With that background about some interpretations of conscience I have seen on this forum, my question is this:

Which Church documents (papal encyclicals or ecumenical council documents for example) state explicitly that it is acceptable for a Catholic to form his or her conscience against the teachings of the Catholic Church?

I’m asking, because I’ve never been able to find one statement that supported “the primacy of conscience” as popularly believed and described above.

The conscience of a Catholic must be formed in accordance with the teachings of the Church. To dissent from a teaching is heresy.

CCC 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[larry85704]

See Catechism, 1782

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

Note this does not say a man can decide to do things contrary to church teachings. Formation of the conscience is a lifelong process. By searching the catechism on concsience you can get more of an understanding of conscience.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Francine_Peters]

Note this does not say a man can decide to do things contrary to church teachings.

A man is always free do decide to do things contrary to Church teachings, and the Church is always free to excommunicate that man.

 

[teachccd]

When I ponder your question it presents itself to be quite problematic. If I were to re-word your question without changing your exact thoughts could I ask, “May one form their conscience without Christ?” being that the Church is the Body of Christ guided by God (the Holy Spirit). If one were to form their conscience without God then there would be no moral decision since God is infinite morality and the very foundation on which our moral decisions rest. When one utilizes their own resources for conscience formation they might just as well utilize their own resources for salvation without the merits of Christ’s death on the cross. And any Christian, Catholic or Protestant knows how futile that is…Merry Christmas…teachccd

 

[KathleenElsie]

Freewill gives you the ability to not follow the teachings of God. Freewill does not give you a free pass from the consequences of this disobedience.

 

[rlg94086]

Great thread! And, one of my favorite subjects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Catholics who believe the Church’s teaching on conscience allows them to decide what is sin and what isn’t sin. They are aided and abetted by some priests and catechists. I am a living testimony, as that is how I was brought into the Church.

What I was told is that with difficult instruction (read: birth control ), if you pray about it, consider what the Church teaches, and your conscience tells you it’s okay…then, it’s not a sin. I escaped that erroneous instruction by actually reading the Catechism.

**1777 **Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

Apparently, some people believe God is telling them to ignore His Church.

**1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

It’s ironic that one of the temptations to “prefer their own judgment” is the incorrect teaching of “primacy of conscience.”

**1801 **Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

Whoopsies…I guess a sin is a sin, even if you “follow your conscience.”

And for the grand finale of catechetical argument…

**2039 **Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord. At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

So, it’s seems pretty simple to me. If your conscience is telling you something contrary to the Church, it’s probably not your conscience. You are listening to another voice, and it is leading you into sin.

 

[fhansen]

Vatican IIs’ Declaration on Religious Liberty states that a person should not be forced to act against their conscience or prevented from acting according to it. Love and our own humilty demand this since we, ourselves, have not always believed as we do now and our own faith is still subject to imperfections or misunderstandings. The early Church appreciated this because it was a persecuted Church. Tertullian stated that religious faith was a matter of free will, that faith wasn’t really faith at all unless freely chosen. Later, as the Church became established and connected with the temporal or political powers-that-be, she found herself in a situation whereby she had the power to force, using civil authority to carry it out, a person to confess the faith, by violence if necessary. I think most would agree that the Churches’ leaders, in this matter, weren’t heeding her own gospel during those times. We should evangelize, but with the sword of truth, drawing people by persuasion. In any case, while some people have chosen to wrongfully interpret the above mentioned document as supporting a “primacy of conscience” type of concept, neither it nor any other teachings of the Church have ever suggested that truth is relative or that a persons’ conscience is superior to the teachings of the Church.

 

[dconstruct]

Excommunication is normally reserved for those who publicly dissent from doctrine.

The Church demands that you accept her authority to inform your conscience. However, the Church acknowledges that due to human limitations (in both capacities to learn and instruct), the true message of Christ is often hard to discern, even amongst the faithful. This is one reason that dictums ex cathedra are so rare; it is why Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger advised JPII against declaring ex cathedra that women were not to be allowed to join the priesthood (even as he advised JPII to excommunicate a half-dozen women who had been “ordained” priests in Germany).

With that said, given the INCREDIBLE diversity of practice within the Catholic Church (not doctrine mind you, but practice), and the wide varieties of practical applications of Catholic principles, you will find widely variant opinions on many issues. Indeed, no man can lay sole claim to the Truth. What keeps it all together is the common statements of faith, and the commitment to continuing in community with faithful dialogue and prayerfullness.

This thread was started because of a controversey surrounding my invocation of the Rule of Conscience with regard to my attitudes towards homosexuality. To clarify: if the Church allows me the final choice to act according to my conscience and to still enjoy communion with her (despite my faults and failings), then I feel obligated to extend that same benefit of the doubt to those with whom I perhaps disagree.

I am not gay. I don’t know what it is like to be gay, therefore I do not judge. I believe that God loves gay people because I believe that God loves all people. I don’t have to say that homosexuality is morally acceptable in order to accept the homosexual as my brother or my sister.

With that said, it makes me angry when I find people who use their breath to hurl invectives and to condemn other people. I don’t have to look any farther than a mirror to see a sinner worth admonishing, and I think that that humility is something that Jesus encouraged. What I know for a fact is that Jesus had little time or patience for holier-than-thou Pharisees and when I see people behaving like that, my first instinct is to attack and ridicule…why? Because I hate a bully, that’s why.

Anyway, I’m out for Christmas!

Hope everyone had a happy one!

 

[Janet_S]

Excommunication is normally reserved for those who publicly dissent from doctrine.

The Church demands that you accept her authority to inform your conscience. However, the Church acknowledges that due to human limitations (in both capacities to learn and instruct), the true message of Christ is often hard to discern, even amongst the faithful. This is one reason that dictums ex cathedra are so rare; it is why Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger advised JPII against declaring ex cathedra that women were not to be allowed to join the priesthood (even as he advised JPII to excommunicate a half-dozen women who had been “ordained” priests in Germany).

With that said, given the INCREDIBLE diversity of practice within the Catholic Church (not doctrine mind you, but practice), and the wide varieties of practical applications of Catholic principles, you will find widely variant opinions on many issues. Indeed, no man can lay sole claim to the Truth. What keeps it all together is the common statements of faith, and the commitment to continuing in community with faithful dialogue and prayerfullness.

This thread was started because of a controversey surrounding my invocation of the Rule of Conscience with regard to my attitudes towards homosexuality. To clarify: if the Church allows me the final choice to act according to my conscience and to still enjoy communion with her (despite my faults and failings), then I feel obligated to extend that same benefit of the doubt to those with whom I perhaps disagree.

I am not gay. I don’t know what it is like to be gay, therefore I do not judge. I believe that God loves gay people because I believe that God loves all people. I don’t have to say that homosexuality is morally acceptable in order to accept the homosexual as my brother or my sister.

With that said, it makes me angry when I find people who use their breath to hurl invectives and to condemn other people. I don’t have to look any farther than a mirror to see a sinner worth admonishing, and I think that that humility is something that Jesus encouraged. What I know for a fact is that Jesus had little time or patience for holier-than-thou Pharisees and when I see people behaving like that, my first instinct is to attack and ridicule…why? Because I hate a bully, that’s why.

Anyway, I’m out for Christmas!

Hope everyone had a happy one!

The Church has excommunicated people for moral reasons too, for example, the Church has excommunicated abortionists and those associated with Planned Parenthood and/or Call to Action.

In the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, there are no widely variant opinions on the moral law. That’s where the faulty notion of “primacy of conscience” comes into play. The moral law is the moral law. It is not a matter of personal opinion nor is it a matter for each of us to decide for ourselves (read JPII’s Veritatis Splendor.)

Don’t assume that those of us who agree with and publicly support the unambiguous Church teaching about homosexual behavior are hate mongers, because we are not.

Back to the OP, on which Magisterial document(s) do you base your idea of “primacy of conscience?” Because, like I’ve said before, I cannot locate any papal encyclical or Church council document that says it is appropriate for a Catholic to form his or her conscience against Church teachings. Nor can I find any document that states that each Catholic is free to determine his or her own moral law.

 

[Janet_S]

Vatican IIs’ Declaration on Religious Liberty states that a person should not be forced to act against their conscience or prevented from acting according to it. Love and our own humilty demand this since we, ourselves, have not always believed as we do now and our own faith is still subject to imperfections or misunderstandings. The early Church appreciated this because it was a persecuted Church. Tertullian stated that religious faith was a matter of free will, that faith wasn’t really faith at all unless freely chosen. Later, as the Church became established and connected with the temporal or political powers-that-be, she found herself in a situation whereby she had the power to force, using civil authority to carry it out, a person to confess the faith, by violence if necessary. I think most would agree that the Churches’ leaders, in this matter, weren’t heeding her own gospel during those times. We should evangelize, but with the sword of truth, drawing people by persuasion. In any case, while some people have chosen to wrongfully interpret the above mentioned document as supporting a “primacy of conscience” type of concept, neither it nor any other teachings of the Church have ever suggested that truth is relative or that a persons’ conscience is superior to the teachings of the Church.

I agree with what you wrote about how V2’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom” or Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is wrongfully interpreted to support the faulty notion of “primacy of conscience” which leads to the mistaken belief that truth is relative.

Catholics should read DH in its entirety, because they will discover this document addresses one particular issue–religious liberty in the secular sphere. It was never the intention of the Council fathers in DH to address the right of individual Catholics to dissent from Church teaching.

To illustrate that point, this is a commentary on DH by John Courtney Murray, SJ, in the 1966 edition of The Documents of V2:

The Council directs a word of pastoral exhortation to the Christian faithful. They are urged, in particular, to form their consciences under the guidance of the authority of the Church. It might be noted here that the Council intended to make a clear distinction between religious freedom as a principle in the civil order and the Christian freedom which obtains even inside the Church. These two freedoms are distinct in kind; and it would be perilous to confuse them. Nowhere does the Declaration touch the issue of freedom within the Church. Undoubtedly, however, it will be a stimulus for the articulation of a full theology of Christian freedom in its relation to the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Church.

Fr Murray’s last sentence proved to be prophetic. Look how many Catholics during the intervening 40 years have mistakenly appealed to DH to support their creative notion of “primacy of conscience.”

 

[Janet_S]

Great thread! And, one of my favorite subjects.

Apparently, some people believe God is telling them to ignore His Church.

So, it’s seems pretty simple to me. If your conscience is telling you something contrary to the Church, it’s probably not your conscience. You are listening to another voice, and it is leading you into sin.

You would probably appreciate this article by George Cardinal Pell:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

I’ve posted this article on two other threads, but I’m posting it again since it complements what you said in your post.

I’ve known many Catholics who believed in “primacy of conscience,” and it is a belief that has never sat well with me. The reason why is that it just doesn’t seem to fit with the other claims and teachings of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, if “primacy of conscience” is true, then nothing else the Church teaches really matters. Because if it is true, it means that in the end it is the individual Catholic that makes up his or her own set of rules.

Implicit in the “primacy of conscience” belief is a disregard for the divine authority of the Church. Once you reject the Church’s authority, the other beliefs fall like dominos. And that’s why you will see those who believe “primacy of conscience” reject not just a few, but many of the Church’s teachings.

Is “primacy of conscience” too illogical to be true? I think so.

 

[rlg94086]

You would probably appreciate this article by George Cardinal Pell:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

I’ve posted this article on two other threads, but I’m posting it again since it complements what you said in your post.

I’ve known many Catholics who believed in “primacy of conscience,” and it is a belief that has never sat well with me. The reason why is that it just doesn’t seem to fit with the other claims and teachings of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, if “primacy of conscience” is true, then nothing else the Church teaches really matters. Because if it is true, it means that in the end it is the individual Catholic that makes up his or her own set of rules.

Implicit in the “primacy of conscience” belief is a disregard for the divine authority of the Church. Once you reject the Church’s authority, the other beliefs fall like dominos. And that’s why you will see those who believe “primacy of conscience” reject not just a few, but many of the Church’s teachings.

Is “primacy of conscience” too illogical to be true? I think so.

Agreed! And, thank you so much for the link to Cardinal Pell’s article. I had heard of him before, but this is the first thing of his I’ve read. I highly recommend anyone reading this thread to give that article a full read - it isn’t short, but I assure you it is well worth your time.
Cardinal Pell:

John Henry Newman was well aware of this position, which represents the best of Catholic thinking on the topic (for instance, the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas in De Veritate). Newman carefully distinguishes himself from those who equate conscience with integrity, sincerity, or preference. In a passage in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church), he writes: “Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, Who, both in nature and grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

This metaphor of “messenger” is key. When we receive messages, we do not make them up or rephrase them in order to make them say what we wish had been said. And thus, if we disagree with the Church’s message so seriously that we cannot follow its terms, we cannot reinvent that message to make it easier or more palatable. Rather, we enter into a period of prayer, study, and enquiry to try to understand the message and to understand why we find ourselves opposed to it. And if the matter that puzzles us is one of a binding Church teaching or a central moral teaching, then this may prove a lifetime’s work.

Once I understood better the role of conscience, I made a crucial decision. If I disagree with something the Church teaches, I will still follow obediently while I pray, study, etc. to understand the teaching. I know I’m not the only one who does this, and of course, I am not 100%, as none of us are.

 

[larry85704]

God gives us free will. It seems to me that God wants us to use it. I don’t think God will accept excuses for sins in our lives. We are responsible for our actions and we are the only ones responsible for them.

All that being said, there are sins, such as pride, or a lack of charity, that it would be difficult to pin down to a place in the Catechism. As a specific example I offer this. A son gets married. His new wife invents reasons not to see her husbands family and to keep him from seeing them. In my book that is sinful.

To all you drama kings and queens out there, there is nothing weird with the son’s family.

The son’s conscience would probably convince him to see his family. Depending on the stubbornness in the wife she would not like it and they might get a divorce.

I think the teaching of the Church actually expands the things we do that would be sinful.

Does anybody understand what I am typing?

 

[Janet_S]

God gives us free will. It seems to me that God wants us to use it. I don’t think God will accept excuses for sins in our lives. We are responsible for our actions and we are the only ones responsible for them.

All that being said, there are sins, such as pride, or a lack of charity, that it would be difficult to pin down to a place in the Catechism. As a specific example I offer this. A son gets married. His new wife invents reasons not to see her husbands family and to keep him from seeing them. In my book that is sinful.

To all you drama kings and queens out there, there is nothing weird with the son’s family.

The son’s conscience would probably convince him to see his family. Depending on the stubbornness in the wife she would not like it and they might get a divorce.

I think the teaching of the Church actually expands the things we do that would be sinful.

Does anybody understand what I am typing?

Larry, I think this is a very good example of how conscience works in our lives.

The function of conscience (simply put) is this: 1) to know what is good and what is evil. This information we get from reason (or the natural law) and from divine revelation (or the teachings of the Church.)
and next 2) to do good and to avoid evil.

We often find ourselves in dilemmas like the one you describe. The son knows that marriage is a sacramental bond, so he must respect and preserve that. But he also knows that he must honor his mother and father. Now his conscience must inform his action–should he risk his marriage or his relationship with his immediate family?

 

[TMC]

Many Catholics believe there is nothing wrong with dissenting from a Church teaching (regarding faith and/or morals) as long as their conscience tells them it’s okay. Not only do they believe it is not wrong to dissent, they believe dissent from Church teaching is a fundamental right of each Catholic.

Some Catholics refer to this as the “primacy of conscience,” and, according to Catholics who believe this way, the judgment of their conscience is superior to the judgment of the Church.

I don’t believe the Church teaches the “primacy of conscience” as described above. If this were really true, each Catholic would be acting as his own Pope. And furthermore, the Church could never admonish any Catholic for any reason as long as he or she claims his conscience is his guiding force.

With that background about some interpretations of conscience I have seen on this forum, my question is this:

Which Church documents (papal encyclicals or ecumenical council documents for example) state explicitly that it is acceptable for a Catholic to form his or her conscience against the teachings of the Catholic Church?

I’m asking, because I’ve never been able to find one statement that supported “the primacy of conscience” as popularly believed and described above.

You will not find any Church documents that say it is “acceptable” to form your conscience at odds with the Church’s teaching. But neither will you find any that say that if your conscience is at odds with the Church’s teachings you should ignore it and simply follow the Church. (Notice that Cardinel Pell does not say this, either.) Both following one’s own feelings and blindly following the Church misapprehend the doctrine of conscience.

It is wrong to say that someone forms his conscience in accord with or in opposition to anything. A conscience that is willfully formed along one or another line of thought is not a properly formed conscience. Conscience is to be a reflection of God’s will. Each individual is charged with divining the truth of God’s will and with learning right from wrong. The teachings of the Church are perhaps the most effective tool in this process. But it is not a process that is fully under the individual’s control, it should be under God’s control through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Most people who have a problem with the idea of conscience seem (to me) to be assuming that the individual is dictating his or her conscience. That people are saying to themselves something like: “I think homosexuality is OK, so how do I wrap my conscience around to allow that?” Of course many people do this, but many do not. That is not what a well-formed conscience is. But neither is a well-formed conscience merely a parroting of the Church’s teachings. That may seem “safer” because the person has an excuse for what he or she believes, but a truly well-formed conscience goes beyond parrotting and truly embraces the belief that it has divined what God believes to be good and moral. Certainly where we are not certain our consciences are well-formed, we should trust in authority (which is one of Cardinal Pell’s main points) but we should not give up on forming a conscience and try to graft on the Church’s, either.

It is possible to have a well-formed conscience that is at odds with the Church. If it were not, then all the Church’s teachings would have to be infallible, which they are not. If your conscience is truly at odds with the Church you should study and pray (as Cardinel Pell says in his article.) But until and unless your conscience comes in line with the Church, what are you to do? Often you can steer a safe course that avoids offending the Church or you conscience. If you cannot, the Church’s teaching is clear - you should follow your conscience. Doing so may present a grave danger, but deliberately doing something you think goes against God is worse, isn’t it? That is what Aquinas taught, and that is what Newman taught.

This is not a simple doctrine or an easy one to apply. It is not a free pass to “believe what you want”. It is a command to conform your life to what you truly believe in your heart God wants, regardless of who stands against you.

 

[rlg94086]

You will not find any Church documents that say it is “acceptable” to form your conscience at odds with the Church’s teaching. But neither will you find any that say that if your conscience is at odds with the Church’s teachings you should ignore it and simply follow the Church. (Notice that Cardinel Pell does not say this, either.) Both following one’s own feelings and blindly following the Church misapprehend the doctrine of conscience.

It is wrong to say that someone forms his conscience in accord with or in opposition to anything. A conscience that is willfully formed along one or another line of thought is not a properly formed conscience. Conscience is to be a reflection of God’s will. Each individual is charged with divining the truth of God’s will and with learning right from wrong. The teachings of the Church are perhaps the most effective tool in this process. But it is not a process that is fully under the individual’s control, it should be under God’s control through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Most people who have a problem with the idea of conscience seem (to me) to be assuming that the individual is dictating his or her conscience. That people are saying to themselves something like: “I think homosexuality is OK, so how do I wrap my conscience around to allow that?” Of course many people do this, but many do not. That is not what a well-formed conscience is. But neither is a well-formed conscience merely a parroting of the Church’s teachings. That may seem “safer” because the person has an excuse for what he or she believes, but a truly well-formed conscience goes beyond parrotting and truly embraces the belief that it has divined what God believes to be good and moral. Certainly where we are not certain our consciences are well-formed, we should trust in authority (which is one of Cardinal Pell’s main points) but we should not give up on forming a conscience and try to graft on the Church’s, either.

It is possible to have a well-formed conscience that is at odds with the Church. If it were not, then all the Church’s teachings would have to be infallible, which they are not. If your conscience is truly at odds with the Church you should study and pray (as Cardinel Pell says in his article.) But until and unless your conscience comes in line with the Church, what are you to do? Often you can steer a safe course that avoids offending the Church or you conscience. If you cannot, the Church’s teaching is clear - you should follow your conscience. Doing so may present a grave danger, but deliberately doing something you think goes against God is worse, isn’t it? That is what Aquinas taught, and that is what Newman taught.

This is not a simple doctrine or an easy one to apply. It is not a free pass to “believe what you want”. It is a command to conform your life to what you truly believe in your heart God wants, regardless of who stands against you.

Well stated TMC, especially the part about “willfully forming your conscience.” I think more people do that than you have stated. They start with their preference and try to find a way to fit it into Church teaching, rather than understand Church teaching.

However, if you are struggling with a particular teaching of the Church, especially an infallible teaching, most likely your conscience isn’t clear. Therefore, IMHO it is better to err on the side of following Church teaching rather than following your unclear conscience, until you have a full understanding. That is not blindly following the Church.

Regarding infallibility, the Magisterium and the Pope are infallible when it comes to doctrine, so when you say “all” Church teaching is not infallible, you need to be a little clearer. If you mean that every document from every bishop and the Pope are not necessarily infallible, you are of course correct, but be careful how you counsel people on this. They may get the wrong idea and feel free to reject any Church teaching they want, even though much is infallibly taught (i.e. all the favorites: homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc.).

 

[TMC]

Well stated TMC, especially the part about “willfully forming your conscience.” I think more people do that than you have stated. They start with their preference and try to find a way to fit it into Church teaching, rather than understand Church teaching.

However, if you are struggling with a particular teaching of the Church, especially an infallible teaching, most likely your conscience isn’t clear. Therefore, IMHO it is better to err on the side of following Church teaching rather than following your unclear conscience, until you have a full understanding. That is not blindly following the Church.

Regarding infallibility, the Magisterium and the Pope are infallible when it comes to doctrine, so when you say “all” Church teaching is not infallible, you need to be a little clearer. If you mean that every document from every bishop and the Pope are not necessarily infallible, you are of course correct, but be careful how you counsel people on this. They may get the wrong idea and feel free to reject any Church teaching they want, even though much is infallibly taught (i.e. all the favorites: homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc.).

I think we mostly agree, but I don’t agee with your characterization of the extent of infallibility. Catholics are obliged to credit the teachings of the Church in all areas of faith and morals unless they they have a conflict of conscience (as I described it in my earlier post, not merely a difference of “opinion”). In that case the person must pray and study and try resolve the conflict. If your conflict is with an infallible doctrine, you really need to take a step back, for obvious reasons.

But I don’t believe there have been very many truly infallible doctrines. On other threads this has been debated ad nauseum with some people saying there are only a very few, others saying there are dozens. The mere fact that the Church has not undertaken to list them anywhere leads me to believe there are not very many. I certainly don’t think that homosexuality or birth control are among them.