Conscience

[rlg94086]

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.

I know you won’t like this statement, but that seems to be a very convenient stance to take. When the Church has taught something clearly and unwavering as far back as any documents exist, I find it difficult to claim that it isn’t infallible doctrine.

 

[rlg94086]

From Cardinal Pell…

If individual conscience has primacy—if it is the end of each story—then we are bound to have clashes that are utterly irresolvable. Take a Catholic supporter of abortion and euthanasia whose conscience tells him he has the right to receive Holy Communion. Add a priest whose conscience tells him to refuse such Communion. How shall we decide between them if conscience is merely the inner oracle that admits no contradiction?

Some will reject the need for patience and conversion in such circumstances. They will speak of the Church’s teaching as if it were something through which they could pick for acceptable items. Once again, this construes the moral life as a matter of personal taste. But no person can guide his conduct purely by taste—for the simple reason that there are no infallible tastes. Everyone is affected by sin. Even non-believers must accept the human propensity to self-deceit, selfishness, and evil. We cannot rely on our tastes in moral matters because we are all vulnerable to acquiring the taste for immorality and egoism. **This means that while we should follow a well-formed conscience, a well-formed conscience is hard to achieve. And if we suspect—as surely we all sometimes must—that our conscience is under-formed or malformed in some area, then we should follow a reliable authority until such time as we can correct our consciences. And for Catholics, the most reliable authority is the Church. **

I suspect that much of the contemporary debate over conscience is driven by a pseudo-Christian impulse towards individual autonomy. Where the world once valued autonomy as the recognition that we are bound by moral laws, it now understands autonomy as the existential liberty to compose our lives, and even reality, for ourselves. It is as though modern and postmodern man is staging a rerun of the primeval fault of our first parents. We stand on the brink, seeking a way forward, accepting no moral guidance in advance of the choice. Yet, as with the first parents, moral guidance is there. A law has been given, and the choice we are faced with is the ancient one: Do I freely obey, or disobey?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Primacy of conscience = I’m too self indulgent to follow Christ.

 

[rwoehmke]

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

On the other hand it also does not say such ignorance and erroneous judgements are always accompanied by guilt. Very true one is obliged to properly form one’s conscience, but until such formation takes place whatever state one’s conscience is in, it has primacy. The degree of culpability would be proportional to just how intentionally one is being obtuse.

 

[rlg94086]

On the other hand it also does not say such ignorance and erroneous judgements are always accompanied by guilt. Very true one is obliged to properly form one’s conscience, but until such formation takes place whatever state one’s conscience is in, it has primacy. The degree of culpability would be proportional to just how intentionally one is being obtuse.

Exactly. If you are truly following your conscience (and not just intellectualizing/rationalizing your opposition to what God is telling you through your conscience), then you would probably not be culpable. This is really the crux of the matter.

What is “your conscience?” The reason some people are so militantly arguing against Church teaching is often because their conscience is telling them the Church is right, but they fight it back with every bit of intellectualizing they can muster and replace truth with their own “impulses and tastes.” They then mistake that with “their conscience.”

I’ve done it…and I’ve witnessed others doing it. Don’t ignore that small, little voice that happens to agree with the Church…it’s probably God talking to you.

 

[rpp]

On the other hand it also does not say such ignorance and erroneous judgements are always accompanied by guilt. Very true one is obliged to properly form one’s conscience, but until such formation takes place whatever state one’s conscience is in, it has primacy. The degree of culpability would be proportional to just how intentionally one is being obtuse.

That is correct, there is such as willful ignorance. (“Don’t tell me, I do not want to know.”) This is quite different from invincible ignorance (“I’m honestly do not understand.”) and vincible ignorance (“Really!? I didn’t know that! I’ll be more careful from now on.”)

Willful ignorance is not at all good and does not relieve the person of culpability. Invincible ignorance can reduce or eliminate the culpability depending on the person and the sin.

Ideally, a person who is ignorant should be, to the best of their mental ability, be vincibly ignorant. That is because such an attitude is a teachable one.

Here is a note from the Catholic Encyclopedia on ignorance.
newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[TMC]

I know you won’t like this statement, but that seems to be a very convenient stance to take. When the Church has taught something clearly and unwavering as far back as any documents exist, I find it difficult to claim that it isn’t infallible doctrine.

I don’t deny this in the least. The infallibilty (or lack thereof) of specific doctrines is much debated. Those disagreeing with specific doctrines always want to find them to be less authoritative than those that agree. Those that dissent from the idea that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved call those teachings “optional.” Proponents of the death penalty call the parts of the catechism the limit its use mere “opinions”. The Church has never seen fit to make a list of what is and is not infallible, which is interesting in itself. At the end of the day each person must examine their own conscience and heart and make as honest an assessment as they can on what they see there.

Perhaps the following should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. I would like to believe (and charity requires me to assume) that those professing conscience are sincere and not self-deluding, but I know that in truth many, many people are happy to delude themselves and ascribe their personal preferences to “conscience”. Usually this comes up when talking about “liberals” and their consciences, but its not limited to the left. This is equally common among the right and left, the admitted cafeteria Catholic and those considered devout. Many Catholics rationalize away the teachings they don’t care for, and all are in precisely the same boat.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t deny this in the least. The infallibilty (or lack thereof) of specific doctrines is much debated. Those disagreeing with specific doctrines always want to find them to be less authoritative than those that agree. Those that dissent from the idea that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved call those teachings “optional.” Proponents of the death penalty call the parts of the catechism the limit its use mere “opinions”. The Church has never seen fit to make a list of what is and is not infallible, which is interesting in itself. At the end of the day each person must examine their own conscience and heart and make as honest an assessment as they can on what they see there.

Perhaps the following should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. I would like to believe (and charity requires me to assume) that those professing conscience are sincere and not self-deluding, but I know that in truth many, many people are happy to delude themselves and ascribe their personal preferences to “conscience”. Usually this comes up when talking about “liberals” and their consciences, but its not limited to the left. This is equally common among the right and left, the admitted cafeteria Catholic and those considered devout. Many Catholics rationalize away the teachings they don’t care for, and all are in precisely the same boat.

I agree 100%. We are all flawed and have to pray and work on our understanding of Church teaching.

Even when some things are very clearly taught, such as the sinfulness of artificial birth control, Catholics will have different understandings of NFP, for example. Even while the Church “allows” states to use the death penalty, Catholics will disagree on whether any use is licit. While the Church allows “just war,” Catholics will disagree on the application of such doctrine and/or whether any war can be considered “just.” These are all things I am praying and working on.

Others, I consider non-negotiable, because the Church is very, very clear. I don’t see how anyone can rationalize them. In this post, you brought up death penalty and the salvation of non-Catholics, which are not black/white teachings of the Church. In your previous post, however, you seemed to be uncertain about homosexuality and artificial birth control. I fail to see where the Church is unclear about those.

 

[TMC]

I agree 100%. We are all flawed and have to pray and work on our understanding of Church teaching.

Even when some things are very clearly taught, such as the sinfulness of artificial birth control, Catholics will have different understandings of NFP, for example. Even while the Church “allows” states to use the death penalty, Catholics will disagree on whether any use is licit. While the Church allows “just war,” Catholics will disagree on the application of such doctrine and/or whether any war can be considered “just.” These are all things I am praying and working on.

Others, I consider non-negotiable, because the Church is very, very clear. I don’t see how anyone can rationalize them. In this post, you brought up death penalty and the salvation of non-Catholics, which are not black/white teachings of the Church. In your previous post, however, you seemed to be uncertain about homosexuality and artificial birth control. I fail to see where the Church is unclear about those.

I agree that the Church is not unclear on homosexuality or ABC, but that it has (deliberately, I assume) been a little vague on the death penalty. I don’t agree that there is such vagueness on non-Catholics - they can be saved (we don’t know which are, but we don’t which Catholics are, either.) But the definiteness of the teaching is not really the point, is it? If you don’t agree, you don’t agree. The fuzzyness of some doctrines just gives more room for rationalization, which can make things worse.

For example, I struggle with the Church’s teachings on both ABC and homosexuality. I admit this freely here and elsewhere. I really believe that I am scouring my soul, I have read all the applicable Church documents, discussed the topics, prayed on them, and I come up the same place everytime. But I acknowledge that I am in dissent and I pray about it.

Let’s look at one we agree is fuzzier. The Church clearly teaches that the death penalty can only be used if no other method of protecting others is effective. What that means is open to discussion. When is there no other means to protect lives? But we cannot use that crack to push through the idea that the death penalty should be used to save money (by not feeding/housing prisoners), or even to provide vengence and closure for victims, because the Church does not allow those applications of the death penalty. But many Catholics rationalize support for a very broad death penalty that is clearly against Church teachings and tell themselves they are in accord with the Church. To rationalize away the respect that the Church requires we give to the lives of criminals without a true examination of conscience is a real problem, don’t you think? Far better to dissent and admit it.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree that the Church is not unclear on homosexuality or ABC, but that it has (deliberately, I assume) been a little vague on the death penalty. I don’t agree that there is such vagueness on non-Catholics - they can be saved (we don’t know which are, but we don’t which Catholics are, either.) But the definiteness of the teaching is not really the point, is it? If you don’t agree, you don’t agree. The fuzzyness of some doctrines just gives more room for rationalization, which can make things worse.

Correct. One of the things that I really appreciated upon conversion to the Church was the teaching that salvation is in God’s hands. I had a lot of pre-Catholic experiences with people saying “you are going to hell.” (I know it can happen with Catholics, as well, but it is not the doctrine of the Church.) When I said not clear, it is because we really don’t know. So, when people get into theoretical arguments about who will be saved, there are various opinions. Quite frankly, the opinions are of no consequence, because it is up to God anyway.

TMC:

For example, I struggle with the Church’s teachings on both ABC and homosexuality. I admit this freely here and elsewhere. I really believe that I am scouring my soul, I have read all the applicable Church documents, discussed the topics, prayed on them, and I come up the same place everytime. But I acknowledge that I am in dissent and I pray about it.

Perfectly fine IMHO, as long as you a) don’t misrepresent Church teaching to someone else, and b) personally, I think you should do your best not to commit the sins.

Let’s look at one we agree is fuzzier. The Church clearly teaches that the death penalty can only be used if no other method of protecting others is effective. What that means is open to discussion. When is there no other means to protect lives? But we cannot use that crack to push through the idea that the death penalty should be used to save money (by not feeding/housing prisoners), or even to provide vengence and closure for victims, because the Church does not allow those applications of the death penalty. But many Catholics rationalize support for a very broad death penalty that is clearly against Church teachings and tell themselves they are in accord with the Church. To rationalize away the respect that the Church requires we give to the lives of criminals without a true examination of conscience is a real problem, don’t you think? Far better to dissent and admit it.

I agree. I personally am not 100% opposed to the Death Penalty, but I struggle with this. The arguments regarding the incarcerated who are still capable of killing while behind bars is a compelling argument, but mainly I believe that the application of the DP should be reserved for the absolute “worst-of-the-worst”…the brutal, serial killers - especially those who do terrible, sadistic things to their victims. This is a matter of justice to me, not vengence.

I have a real problem with the application of the DP for someone who, for example, kills their spouse. Whether pre-meditated or not, I find it difficult to conclude that they are a threat to society as a whole.

 

[Janet_S]

To TMC,

You have outlined your belief on conscience. But you never said on which Church documents you base your beliefs. Can you answer that question please?

To address something else you said, the Church’s teachings are not as fuzzy as you claim. I guess you could claim the 10 commandments aren’t infallible either, but do you think they are likely to change?

By infallibility, the Church means that she is preserved from making errors when defining matters of faith and morals.

The voice of infallible authority can come by 3 ways:

1. Through the Pope by an ex cathedra pronouncement. This type of statement is rare. The Assumption and the IC are examples of ex cathedra of statements. Canonizations of saints probably are too, though there is still some debate about that.
2. Through an ecumenical council (the bishops of the universal Church in union with the Pope.) Anything taught in an ecumenical council is infallible. That would include much of what the Church teaches in the New Catechism and the documents of V2. Also anything in the 20 councils prior to V2:
   newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
3. Through the ordinary magisterium (ordinary exercise of the authority of the bishops of the universal Church in union with the Pope.) That includes the Church’s teaching on abortion.

You mentioned Newman. As far as he is concerned, he actually did believe Catholics should believe all that the Church taught. He was no cafeteria Catholic by any stretch of the imagination:
newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter5-2.html#section3

And so, in like manner, of the whole depositum of faith, or the revealed word:—If we believe in the revelation, we believe in what is revealed, in all that is revealed, however it may be brought home to us, by reasoning or in any other way. He who believes that Christ is the Truth, and that the Evangelists are truthful,
believes all that He has said through them, though he has only read St. Matthew and has not read St. John. He who believes in the depositum of Revelation, believes in all the doctrines of the depositum; and since he cannot know them all at once, he knows some doctrines, and does not know others; he may know only the Creed, nay, perhaps only the chief portions of the Creed;
but, whether he knows little or much, he has the intention of believing all that there is to believe whenever and as soon as it is brought home to him, if he believes in Revelation at all. All that he knows now as revealed, and all that he shall know, and all that there is to know, he embraces it all in his intention by one act of faith; otherwise, it is but an accident that he believes this or that, not because it is a revelation. This virtual, interpretative, or prospective belief is called a believing implicitè; and it follows from this, that, granting that the Canons of Councils and the other ecclesiastical documents and confessions, to which I have referred, are really involved in the depositum or revealed word, every Catholic, in accepting the depositum, does implicitè accept those dogmatic decisions.

I say, “granting these various propositions are virtually contained in the revealed word,” for this is the {153} only question left; and that it is to be answered in the affirmative, is clear at once to the Catholic, from the fact that the Church declares that they really belong to it. To her is committed the care and the interpretation of the revelation. The word of the Church is the word of the revelation. That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion; and “I believe what the Church proposes to be believed” is an act of real assent, including all particular assents, notional and real; and, while it is possible for unlearned as well as learned, it is imperative on learned as well as unlearned. And thus it is, that by believing the word of the Church implicitè, that is, by believing all that that word does or shall declare itself to contain, every Catholic, according to his intellectual capacity, supplements the shortcomings of his knowledge without blunting his real assent to what is elementary, and takes upon himself from the first the whole truth of revelation, progressing from one apprehension of it to another according to his opportunities of doing so. Grammar of Assent

 

[Janet_S]

What is “your conscience?” The reason some people are so militantly arguing against Church teaching is often because their conscience is telling them the Church is right, but they fight it back with every bit of intellectualizing they can muster and replace truth with their own “impulses and tastes.” They then mistake that with “their conscience.”

I’ve done it…and I’ve witnessed others doing it. Don’t ignore that small, little voice that happens to agree with the Church…it’s probably God talking to you.

I agree with this. We are born with common sense, and sometimes we are educated out of our common sense. The Church is just reinforcing the common sense we were born with.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

We are expected to follow the teachings of the Church, though not blindly.

*Lumen Gentium *25 says we must submit our mind and will to magisterial teaching:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

 

[TMC]

To TMC,

You have outlined your belief on conscience. But you never said on which Church documents you base your beliefs. Can you answer that question please?

To address something else you said, the Church’s teachings are not as fuzzy as you claim. I guess you could claim the 10 commandments aren’t infallible either, but do you think they are likely to change?

By infallibility, the Church means that she is preserved from making errors when defining matters of faith and morals.

The voice of infallible authority can come by 3 ways:

1. Through the Pope by an ex cathedra pronouncement. This type of statement is rare. The Assumption and the IC are examples of ex cathedra of statements. Canonizations of saints probably are too, though there is still some debate about that.
2. Through an ecumenical council (the bishops of the universal Church in union with the Pope.) Anything taught in an ecumenical council is infallible. That would include much of what the Church teaches in the New Catechism and the documents of V2. Also anything in the 20 councils prior to V2:
   newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
3. Through the ordinary magisterium (ordinary exercise of the authority of the bishops of the universal Church in union with the Pope.) That includes the Church’s teaching on abortion.

You mentioned Newman. As far as he is concerned, he actually did believe Catholics should believe all that the Church taught. He was no cafeteria Catholic by any stretch of the imagination:
newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter5-2.html#section3

The Church and its Doctors and teachers have spoken in many places on conscience, but one need not look farther than the catechism to find the teachings I base my understanding of conscience on. I am not sure what you mean by your question, do you find my understanding of conscience at odds with yours? I think it is precisely in line with the Church’s teachings, and would be interested in hearing where you think it strays.

Newman did believe that Catholics should believe all the Church taught, but he recognized that this does not always happen. I am sure you are familiar with his famous toast to “conscience first”. Newman took disagreement with the Church as a very serious matter, but recognized that it is possible and must be taken seriously when it happens.

As far as infallibility goes, there have been many long threads on that topic. I will say this much - I don’t believe that just because a teaching is not declared “infallible” that it somehow becomes optional. That is the road that many Catholics take to avoid admitting they are in dissent from the Church’s teachings. It does not really matter if something is infallible or not, if you don’t agree with it you are going against the Church in that area.

As far as whether the Church is “fuzzy” on some teachings, that is hard to dispute, I think. Most threads on this forum feature several well-educated and sincere Catholics with different ideas of what this or that doctrine means. You ask if the Ten Commandents are not infallible - I am not sure the term applies one way or the other because they are not a declaration of doctrine from the Magisterium. Nonetheless I will agree that they are immutable. What is obviously very mutable is what people are to believe they mean. The Church’s application of the Commandments has changed over time, although perhaps you would not agree with that.

But none of that really matters to this conversation because I am not saying that any of these teachings are optional or using the fuzziness of doctrine to excuse my positions. I understand that I disagree with the Church in certain areas. I have never said that it is “OK” for me to do so; it bothers me a great deal. I agree that I have an obligation to study and pray on that matter. I do not present my dissident beliefs as those of the Church. But as long as my conscience does not line up with the Church’s teachings I am obliged to follow it. It seems this last is where you have a problem.

Do you believe that even if I firmly believe, after prayer and study, that the Church is wrong on a particular teaching that I should ignore what my conscience says is right and assent to the Church’s teaching? If so, where do you derive that teaching from? And how exactly does one do that, or is it enough to just pretend to believe?

 

[iamrefreshed]

And how exactly does one do that, or is it enough to just pretend to believe?

I think of it more as being obedient rather than ‘pretending to believe’.

My children listen to my rules because they are obedient. My son is perfectly convinced he will never be harmed jumping off the roof into the pool.

 

[TMC]

I think of it more as being obedient rather than ‘pretending to believe’.

My children listen to my rules because they are obedient. My son is perfectly convinced he will never be harmed jumping off the roof into the pool.

Obedience and belief are two completely different things. I have never said that I disobey what the Church commands in any of these areas. I don’t believe what the Church teaches, but I am fortunate to not be in a position to have my actions put at odds with the Church due to conscience.

Also, your example is far too simple. A better one would be that you always taught your son to be kind to his sister. Then one day you tell him to hit his sister. He must decide if there is some good reason why this order, which seems at odd with the first one, is correct. A child should be expected to trust that the parent has both children’s best interest in mind and has some good reason for this command, but he may not. As he gets older he is less and less likely to blindly follow the contrary seeming command.

This is how it feels to me, I don’t see any good reason for these teachings that seem counter to other teachings, and I can’t bring myself to just assent to them.

 

[fhansen]

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

This makes sense because the doctrine of infallibility is valid-and so naturally justice demands our assent. It can be challenging, though, because in truth there are actually degrees of assent, ranging from giving the magisterium the benefit of the doubt on a given matter to being in full agreement with it. Many years ago, when still outside of the Church, I believed abortion was OK. Years later, as I was returning to the Church, I was more or less neutral on the issue but at least gave the benefit of doubt on that matter to the Church. I was dealing with other issues at the time, such as Church history and Her doctrine on salvation, which served to convince me of the CCs’ validity. The more my faith and trust grew in the Churches’ teachings on one matter, the more I came to trust Her on other issues. Eight to ten years ago, I found myself in agreement with the Church on abortion but today my belief in the wrongfulness of that act is even stronger and so my assent to or solidarity with the Churches’ teaching is several degrees stronger as well. The same goes for the Churches’ doctrines on Mary and other teachings that I had put on the back burner at first. I guess I’m trying to say that while full assent is an ideal which the Church should and does propound, to expect it all at once and on all matters is like saying Adam shouldn’t have sinned and started all this mess and ignorance to begin with-which he shouldn’t have, of course, but he did and so we find ourselves groping in darkness towards a light which may take some of us a bit of time to arrive at but until we do, it won’t do much good, and in fact would be dishonest, to tell ourselves or others that we believe something that we don’t. I don’t know if this adds anything to this discussion; one way or the other I do agree in principle with the quoted statement but unfortunately I think many in the Church don’t.

 

[fix]

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?

None.

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 individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, *the crisis of truth *is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature…

The Second Vatican Council points out that the "supreme rule of life is the divine law itself, the eternal, objective and universal law by which God out of his wisdom and love arranges, directs and governs the whole world and the paths of the human community…

Nowhere have I found the Church claims an individual, subjective, conscience that rejects the teachings of Christ through His Church is objectievly correctly formed. In fact, She says such a conscience is erroneous. Culpability will vary, but it is an erroneous conscience.

 

[fix]

Do you believe that even if I firmly believe, after prayer and study, that the Church is wrong on a particular teaching that I should ignore what my conscience says is right and assent to the Church’s teaching? If so, where do you derive that teaching from?

The Church speaks as Christ, so yes, you should change your understanding. The teaching is in Scripture, Tradition and is described in the CCC.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

We are expected to follow the teachings of the Church, though not blindly.

QUOTE]

I cannot understand this distinction. If we are not to depart from Church teaching for any reason, then how can we avoid following blindly? You have consistently said that no conscious can be formed properly by definition unless it is in conformity with Church teaching, so again how can one do anything but follow blindly?

I find it hard to understand how anyone born, raised and educated in this country can turn over their soveign right as a citizen and as a God created human being to any organization no matter how much you believe in it. You of course as I have said before make it virtually impossible for Catholics to run for office or participate in government. You would place everyone on notice than any elected Catholic official owes his/her first allegiance to a Church. No one in their right mind would vote for such a person, as no Catholic would vote for anyone who proclaimed their jewishness, mormonism, Calvinism or whatever came first and dictated their decisions. In the shadow of the Nuremberg trials, I find it shocking that any American would take such a position.