Conscience

[fix]

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.

Accepting the authority of Christ is parroting? Or blind?

It is possible to have a well-formed conscience that is at odds with the Church.

That is like saying one can reject Christ and still be correct? One can be sincere, but still objectively wrong.

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?

Obey, unless as a Catholic one rejects the authority of Christ.

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.

A final passage, also frequently cited, is Cardinal Newman’s famous declaration at the end of his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please – still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards”. Newman was concerned about the Ultramontane claims of extreme infallibilists, facetiously explaining that if the Pope told the English bishops to order their priests to work for teetotalism or to hold a lottery in each mission, they would not be obliged to do so. Here he is addressing a situation in which Popes issue orders – not moral teaching – that exceed their authority. Newman would of course believe that confronted with Church teaching, we all have the obligation to form and inform our consciences by that. But there is no doubt also that his understanding of conscience is very specifically Christocentric and God-centred, within the Catholic tradition.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

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

Has an ecumenical council, or the ordinary magisterium every made a change which reversed another ecumenical council, or ordinary magisterium decision?

 

[rlg94086]

None.

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.

Hi fix,

TMC’s challenge is not that someone’s conscience is “correctly formed” if it’s at odds with the Church, rather that one should follow one’s conscience, even while it is at odds with the Church.

While I’m not sure I agree with TMC’s assessment, it is a different question than whether one’s formed conscience is possibly erroneous or not.

 

[fix]

Hi fix,

TMC’s challenge is not that someone’s conscience is “correctly formed” if it’s at odds with the Church, rather that one should follow one’s conscience, even while it is at odds with the Church.

While I’m not sure I agree with TMC’s assessment, it is a different question than whether one’s formed conscience is possibly erroneous or not.

He specifically states one may have a well formed conscience that is at odds with Church teaching.

What is often forgotten in these threads is that while the Church states we should follow our conscience, She also states there is objective truth and we have a serious obligation to assent to Church teachings.

From Cardinal Pell again:

My object is twofold: firstly to explain that increasingly, even in Catholic circles, the appeal to the primacy of conscience is being used to justify what we would like to do rather than what God wants us to do. Even within Catholic discourse two different notions of conscience are at work; a) neo-pagan or secular, which feels free to override official Catholic moral teaching, even when it is confirming New Testament teaching, and b) a Christian understanding of conscience which recognises explicitly the authority of New Testament moral teaching and the official Catholic affirmation or development of that teaching. My second claim is that conscience does not, even in the second and Catholic sense, enjoy primacy, because conscience always involves a human act of judgement which could be mistaken, innocently or otherwise and the consequences of all decisions have to be played out in some ordered human community. Every human community has to limit the rights of its members to “err” however error is defined.

A second reference frequently quoted, and indeed cited by the Holy Father himself in Crossing the Threshold of Hope comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who explains that if a man is admonished by his conscience, even when it is erroneous he must always listen to it and follow it. The supporters of primacy of conscience do not go on to explain, as Aquinas does and John Paul II has done over a life-time of writing, that the binding force of conscience, even mistaken conscience, comes from the person’s belief that the conscientious decision is in accord with the law of God. I also believe that a person following Aquinas’ advice might not only err in an objective sense, but could be guilty for his mistaken views. But more on this later…

 

[Mousey]

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.

The Church is God created you are objecting not to an organization but to God Himself. In faith and morals, the Church is protected from error. We as individuals do not have that assurance. If I wanted to build a house, I might have my own ideas but I would submit to the judgment of a contractor as one who knew what they were doing. I might check it out but in the end the expert is who I would follow. The Church is the guiding force that God instituted to direct us why would anyone submit to their fallible opinion?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hi fix,

TMC’s challenge is not that someone’s conscience is “correctly formed” if it’s at odds with the Church, rather that one should follow one’s conscience, even while it is at odds with the Church.

While I’m not sure I agree with TMC’s assessment, it is a different question than whether one’s formed conscience is possibly erroneous or not.

Many years ago, I built an airplane out of scrap lumber. It was fun to sit in the airplane and pretend I was flying. But I decided that wasn’t enough. I wanted to really fly.

I had an uncle who was into model airplanes, and I talked to him about it. He explained very patiently to me why my airplane could never fly.

But I knew better. I disassembled my airplane, hoisted it piece by piece onto the garage roof and reassmebled it. I climbed into the cockpit, released the chocks, and away we went.

That experience taught me that, no matter how much I believe I’m right, it is less painful to listen to the experts.

 

[rpp]

The Church is God created you are objecting not to an organization but to God Himself. In faith and morals, the Church is protected from error. We as individuals do not have that assurance. If I wanted to build a house, I might have my own ideas but I would submit to the judgment of a contractor as one who knew what they were doing. I might check it out but in the end the expert is who I would follow. The Church is the guiding force that God instituted to direct us why would anyone submit to their fallible opinion?

Well stated.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well stated.

Which explains why my airplane didn’t fly as far as I thought it would, and why I walked with a limp for weeks after the experience.

 

[catharina]

Janet S;3125293:

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.

It’s simple. When one chooses to conform one’s beliefs to the teachings of the Church, one is acting in obedience, willing one’s self to be obedient, never a mindless or “blind” or easy thing.

Your second point? Also simple. There is no doubt that many Americans have chosen Americanism as their version of religious practice. Rather than recognizing the privileges that come with US citizenship, thanking God and working to share the freedom and the wealth, they are more concerned with acquisitions and a hoarding mentality - plus that peculiar sense of entitlement so often found among self-involved Americans.

Third point, simplest of all. This year, one Henry Hyde died at home in Illinois. He served as RC, pro-life, politician and as an elected public official until retirement. The many who elected him again and again were not only RCs but also those of many religious practices; all knew that Henry Hyde stood by his Roman Catholic principles as the root of his belief in the sacredness of life. (I believe that Iowa, your home, is still right next door to Illinois. No?)

 

[fix]

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.

But, Nazism is exactly why your position is incorrect. If one follows your logic one would conclude they were justified because they followed their conscience.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Obedience and belief are two completely different things.

Maybe they are…if you let them. I think obedience LEADS to belief. Persistenance is what is needed. Remember the old woman and the judge?

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.

You are fortunate not to have to test yourself. However, you also are in a position whereby you can easily confirm someone in their sin. Sometimes our actions are really more than what we do…They are also what we DON’T do.

Also, your example is far too simple.

I don’t see it as too simple. We were told by Christ to be childlike.

 

[rpp]

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.

Emphasis mine.

I believe that you, in fact, have been unfortunate. How can you know if something is right unless it is tested?

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 actually a poor example. Why, because the parent has changed. The Church has not changed it position on moral issues or doctrine. It has advanced our understanding, but it has never changed anything. For example, homosexual activity, abortion and contraception have always been considered grave sins. And while the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary were not made clear until quite recently, the ideas date back to the early Church fathers.

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.

Then I sincerely and cordially invite you to learn more about the Church and her teachings. It is astonishing how complete and utterly consistent they are when viewed within the framework of a logic.

 

[gkroeger]

Hello

I just finished reviewing this thread. It appears to be consistent with my recent concern which I posted several days ago as a new thread under “Ask an Apologist”, but it was never answered.

After attending Mass at a Christmas Vigil, it hit me that all Christmas and Easter Masses are always crowded. As all Catholics know, many other Catholics attend Mass only on these two days. Which is wonderful that they attend Mass on these special days, however, my concern which as I stated, I think fits well with this thread, is that virtually 100% of attendees at these Masses seem to receive Holy Communion. I was greatly puzzled by this until reading this thread. Surely most of these Catholic know the Church’s teaching on the requirements for a valid reception of Holy Communion. It must be that they believe their own Conscience over the Church’s teaching on this subject.

I guess it also explains issues like Catholic politicians supporting Abortion.

My thanks also to Janet S for posting the link to George Cardinal Pell’s article on “The Inconvenient Conscience” it is a great commentary on this issue. I am pasting in an excerpt from that article here that pertains to my issue.

Insert…
With the decline in confession we have also seen a decline in the understanding and discipline of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Some people believe that the only condition for receiving Holy Communion is that one be present at Mass. That those who go to Communion should be in full communion with the pope, reconciled with their brothers and sisters, and in a state of grace—such an idea would seem strange to many Catholics today. Many would be surprised by the suggestion, let alone the requirement, that they should be regular churchgoers before receiving Communion at, for example, Christmas or a family funeral. As the Sacrament of Penance becomes less visible, there is a danger that people will misunderstand the connection between repentance and Communion—a danger that they will assume that the unrepentant sinner is as welcome at the altar as the repentant sinner.
Of course, our Lord wants everyone to be in church, and He wants all sinners to repent and to return to Him in Holy Communion. But we must recall that in approaching the altar we receive our Lord, body and blood, soul and divinity. To receive Christ whole and entire while rejecting “in conscience” parts of his Church’s solemn teaching is to contradict the truth about one’s relationship to the Church.
As mistaken views of conscience weaken our understanding of penance and Communion, they begin to cause wider confusion about other sacraments. If morality is determined purely by conscience, then it becomes more difficult to accept baptism as the bringing about of an objective change that is necessary because of original sin. Instead, baptism will be understood as some sort of naming ceremony—or as an entry-into-the-community ceremony.

 

[TMC]

Emphasis mine.

I believe that you, in fact, have been unfortunate. How can you know if something is right unless it is tested?

This is actually a poor example. Why, because the parent has changed. The Church has not changed it position on moral issues or doctrine. It has advanced our understanding, but it has never changed anything. For example, homosexual activity, abortion and contraception have always been considered grave sins. And while the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary were not made clear until quite recently, the ideas date back to the early Church fathers.

Then I sincerely and cordially invite you to learn more about the Church and her teachings. It is astonishing how complete and utterly consistent they are when viewed within the framework of a logic.

I appreciate the invitation. This is almost always the reaction I get when I say I dissent from certain Church teachings. I have been studying these issues for many years, I believe I am well-founded in Church teaching, and I still cannot agree.

This is what I mean by well-formed conscience, BTW. I don’t mean “correct” necessarily. None of us know if our consciences are “correct” and I submit that none are perfect. But we have an obligation to attempt to educate ourselves, to pray, to study. This is what I have done. I continue to do so. I can’t just chuck out all that I believe and adopt the Church’s teachings in these areas. I do not meant that I will not. I cannot.

I did believe these teachings as a child, because I was taught them and I trust the Church. The great irony is that I came to disbelieve after studying them further as an adult. Should we insist that Catholics not study the Faith beyond a twelve-year old’s depth of understanding? I feel called to learn more and study more, and my studies have deepened my Faith and convinced me of the truth of the vast majority of what the Church teaches. There are areas where the opposite has occured. I could have stayed a very superficial go to Mass on Sunday and never really think about God kind of Catholic, would that have been better?

 

[rpp]

I appreciate the invitation. This is almost always the reaction I get when I say I dissent from certain Church teachings. I have been studying these issues for many years, I believe I am well-founded in Church teaching, and I still cannot agree.

This is what I mean by well-formed conscience, BTW. I don’t mean “correct” necessarily. None of us know if our consciences are “correct” and I submit that none are perfect. But we have an obligation to attempt to educate ourselves, to pray, to study. This is what I have done. I continue to do so. I can’t just chuck out all that I believe and adopt the Church’s teachings in these areas. I do not meant that I will not. I cannot.

I did believe these teachings as a child, because I was taught them and I trust the Church. The great irony is that I came to disbelieve after studying them further as an adult. Should we insist that Catholics not study the Faith beyond a twelve-year old’s depth of understanding? I feel called to learn more and study more, and my studies have deepened my Faith and convinced me of the truth of the vast majority of what the Church teaches. There are areas where the opposite has occured. I could have stayed a very superficial go to Mass on Sunday and never really think about God kind of Catholic, would that have been better?

It does indeed sound as if some of the sources of study may not have presented correct Church teachings. I have found that a good test of whether a statement, theological or moral opinion is on the right track is to examine how well it fits with the rest of Church teaching. Sound ideas will create no contradictions or logical difficulties. Incomplete or incorrect ones with be at odds somewhere with the teachings.

When I converted from atheism a few years ago, (a sudden and miraculous conversion, BTW) I realized I needed to make some real changes in my moral outlook. I decided to take the attitude that 2,000 years of being lead by the Holy Spirit gave the Church some experience and wisdom that I did not posses. So I chose to adopt the morality of what the Church taught then began to investigate each area where I had disagreed. The humility of first following then learning gave me the opportunity to better understand what the Church taught. Admittedly, for some issues, like abortion and homosexual activity, it took longer for me understand the Church’s reasoning, but eventually I did.

Perhaps this is an approach that you may consider. I mean, if you later find that you still cannot understand or agree, that you are free to return to your previous perspective.

May God bless you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But, Nazism is exactly why your position is incorrect. If one follows your logic one would conclude they were justified because they followed their conscience.

The Nuremburg trials established the point that one cannot follow blindly the dictates of their government and be safe from being charged with war crimes. One is required to exercise one’s own conscience and refuse to obey immoral laws. That is the point. A doctrine claimed by some here amounts to the same thing. They are claiming that one need only “follow the dictates of the Church” . Such a thought is anathama to most democracy loving peoples and is I submit an abnegation of our responsibilities as Spirited Creatures owing our total allegience to God alone. The rest has been stated ad nauseum about what is entailed in forming one’s conscience properly.; Some here will only hear “pick what you like” while that has never been the message. Such a system would be ludicrous.

 

[Mousey]

. One is required to exercise one’s own conscience and refuse to obey immoral laws.
Exactly what those who oppose abortion do.
That is the point. A doctrine claimed by some here amounts to the same thing. They are claiming that one need only “follow the dictates of the Church” . Such a thought is anathama to most democracy loving peoples and is I submit an abnegation of our responsibilities as Spirited Creatures owing our total allegience to God alone.
Wow making black white. It is interesting that you use anathema a term the means a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication. Have you promoted democracy to be a religion now? What you have stated is not an allegiance to God but to people. Where has God ever been a democracy?

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise… [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it… Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. the truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. the verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52

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."53

 

[fhansen]

I think there is a bridge, of sorts, between some of these opinions.
The Church, having received the “deposit of Faith” has a sure knowledge of the truth and is duty-bound to proclaim it, but from our standpoint, our growth in the knowledge of that truth-and with it the forming of our consciences-is a continuous process so we can’t know the truth that the Church holds, with the certainty which she has, until we simply know it for ourselves. Fortunately the Holy Spirit is patient and will guide us into truth by the light of the Churches teachings if we are open to that guidance.

The quotes below are from Pope Benedicts’ “Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization” Dec, 2007:

Generally, the term conversion is used in reference to bringing pagans into the Church. However, conversion (metanoia), in its precisely Christian meaning, signifies a change in thinking and in acting, as the expression of the new life in Christ proclaimed by faith: a continuous reform of thought and deeds directed at an ever more intense identification with Christ (cf. Gal 2:20), to which the baptized are called before all else.

the truth “does not impose itself except by the strength of the truth itself”.

It is important therefore to appreciate this action of the Spirit, who creates an affinity for the truth and draws the human heart towards it, by helping human knowledge to mature both in wisdom and in trusting abandonment to what is true.

 

[catharina]

To compare the dictates of Naziism with the teachings of the Church is to suggest comparing moral rot to overflowing grace. We need not ever understand every fine point of Church teaching before we accept it and support it in faith. Indeed, that’s a distinct difference in being led by faith or subscribing to the tenets of political ends as one’s moral guide.

(fhansen, I agree with your post.)

 

[Janet_S]

Janet S;3125293:

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.

I find it shocking that someone who calls herself a Catholic thinks Catholicism is a threat to democracy.

What do you think of *Lumen Gentium *25? Or does you conscience tell you you don’t have to pay any attention to it?