Conscience

[Janet_S]

This thread has become funny and sad, people using their conscience to argue against the use of conscience. Next they have to claim authority to redefine words. From where does the authority derive: conscience. To substitute individual conscience one has to turn all decision making to the magistrium, but that requires not just the magistrium dedicate them self to guiding a single life, but also the elimination of free will for that individual, a process which would seem out of God’s plan (This is though a statement from conscience)

I never said there was no such thing as a conscience, I just believe a lot of people do what they want (self will) in the name of conscience. TMC acknowledged this as well.

I started this thread because there are a lot of Catholics who promote the idea that the Church teaches a “primacy of conscience” doctrine, whereby each Catholic can reject Church teachings (I suppose as many as they like) on the basis of conscience and still remain a Catholic in good standing and still receive Communion, etc. My claim is that this is an abuse and distortion of the true Catholic notion of conscience.

The Church doesn’t teach this idea of conscience as a license to disregard the moral and divine law. Actually, it rejects it in Lumen Gentium 25.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

This was my experience too, especially regarding the moral issues of abortion and ABC. With time, the truth of these teachings are more and more evident to me.

 

[fix]

I intended to discuss only #1782 from the Catechism.

This is from *Dignitatis Humanae *3. This Declaration has nothing to do with an individual Catholic and his or her relationship to the Church. It has nothing to do with individual Catholics dissenting from Church teaching. It is concerned with religious freedom and civil authorities or governments. The very title of the Declaration makes this clear from the outset:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

The text of the document makes it clear as well. The declaration is concerned with the individual in civil society; not with the individual within the Church:

and here it exhorts Christians to form their consciences by Church teachings:

I used the footnote (from Fr John Courtney Murray) from the 1966 edition of the Vatican 2 Documents only to shed light on the Declaration on Religious Freedom. He was present at the Council and was one of the people who translated the document from the original Latin. I suppose he knows a thing or two about the spirit of Vatican II. You can ignore the footnote if you want. The Declaration by its title and text are enough to prove what we are dealing with–religious freedom in society at large.

On the other hand, if you want to understand what the Council taught about the individual Catholic and his relationship to the Church, read *Lumen Gentium. *

Now, we have posted link upon link that contradicts the notion a Catholic is “free” to reject magisterial teaching in forming one’s conscience. Part of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of what authentic freedom is and what proper formation of conscience really means.

 

[rlg94086]

Individual Catholics have the right to dissent from Church teaching:

However, when their conscience tells them to disregard the authority of the church, those people become heretics. Canon 1364 automatically excommunicates such people, and they are no longer catholic, in my understanding.

Yep. We have an absolute right to reject the Church and commit mortal sin. That is what “free will” is all about.

 

[TMC]

Now, we have posted link upon link that contradicts the notion a Catholic is “free” to reject magisterial teaching in forming one’s conscience. Part of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of what authentic freedom is and what proper formation of conscience really means.

There is nothing “free” about following conscience. As the “link upon link” demonstrate it is mandatory to follow one’s conscience. This is because, properly understood, conscience is not what the individual thinks is right, it is what the individual truly believes that God commands. Conscience is not a ticket to “believe what you want”. It is a command to divine the truth and live by God’s law. There seem to be two issues that are creating this argument.

The first issue seems to be whether following one’s conscience is “free” as in “without recourse”. I have never said that. If I follow my conscience and it is ill-formed there may well be grave consequences for my soul. The catechism says that. But choosing to do something my conscience says is wrong is inherently sinful. The catechism also says that. So if you have a poorly formed conscience you are in a bad spot. There is no free lunch here, at least I am not advocating that. Catholics are required (not allowed) to follow their conscience. If that leads them into error, they pay the consequences. If they were truly well-meaning that may be mitigating. If they were self-deluded that will probably be aggravating.

The second issue seems to be over whether it is possible to form one’s conscience in a way that is opposed to the Church’s teachings. It seems manifestly obvious to me that this can occur, and apparently it is equally obvious and manifest to others that it cannot. I don’t know how to deal with this split. Some keep saying things like “just accept whatever the Church says”. But I don’t think that is what we are charged to do; and even if it were I don’t think my mind works like that. I would note that many, many saintly people through the ages have disagreed with the Church from time to time. The Church itself has changed some of its teachings over time. (I know some don’t want to believe this, but its true.) The Church has said that all of its teachings are mandatory and to be followed, but has declined to say that all of them are infallible and immutable. So I don’t know why its so unimaginable to believe that someone could legitimately have a disagreement of conscience today, but my take is that some believe that any disagreement with the Church must be disingenous or self-deluded. I don’t see it that way.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks Janet and fix

I never said there was no such thing as a conscience, I just believe a lot of people do what they want (self will) in the name of conscience. TMC acknowledged this as well.

I started this thread because there are a lot of Catholics who promote the idea that the Church teaches a “primacy of conscience” doctrine, whereby each Catholic can reject Church teachings (I suppose as many as they like) on the basis of conscience and still remain a Catholic in good standing and still receive Communion, etc. My claim is that this is an abuse and distortion of the true Catholic notion of conscience.

The Church doesn’t teach this idea of conscience as a license to disregard the moral and divine law. Actually, it rejects it in Lumen Gentium 25.

Authority is from Christ. This makes little sense. Each conscience makes decisions which ought to be made based on a well informed conscience…

I have never seen a post claiming such license exist, nor do I see any argument the Church vacated its authority. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what the Magisterium has written, and what people understand these writings to mean. The issue at hand is when two disagree both claim to have a better formed conscience on the subject. And they base that idea on their conscience. So from a practical point of view we cannot separate our conscience form the church teaching to do so requires inhuman capability.

 

[fix]

Yep. We have an absolute right to reject the Church and commit mortal sin. That is what “free will” is all about.

I would not call it freedom, but license.

 

[rlg94086]

There is nothing “free” about following conscience. As the “link upon link” demonstrate it is mandatory to follow one’s conscience. This is because, properly understood, conscience is not what the individual thinks is right, it is what the individual truly believes that God commands. Conscience is not a ticket to “believe what you want”. It is a command to divine the truth and live by God’s law. There seem to be two issues that are creating this argument.

The first issue seems to be whether following one’s conscience is “free” as in “without recourse”. I have never said that. If I follow my conscience and it is ill-formed there may well be grave consequences for my soul. The catechism says that. But choosing to do something my conscience says is wrong is inherently sinful. The catechism also says that. So if you have a poorly formed conscience you are in a bad spot. There is no free lunch here, at least I am not advocating that. Catholics are required (not allowed) to follow their conscience. If that leads them into error, they pay the consequences. If they were truly well-meaning that may be mitigating. If they were self-deluded that will probably be aggravating.

The second issue seems to be over whether it is possible to form one’s conscience in a way that is opposed to the Church’s teachings. It seems manifestly obvious to me that this can occur, and apparently it is equally obvious and manifest to others that it cannot. I don’t know how to deal with this split. Some keep saying things like “just accept whatever the Church says”. But I don’t think that is what we are charged to do; and even if it were I don’t think my mind works like that. I would note that many, many saintly people through the ages have disagreed with the Church from time to time. The Church itself has changed some of its teachings over time. (I know some don’t want to believe this, but its true.) The Church has said that all of its teachings are mandatory and to be followed, but has declined to say that all of them are infallible and immutable. So I don’t know why its so unimaginable to believe that someone could legitimately have a disagreement of conscience today, but my take is that some believe that any disagreement with the Church must be disingenous or self-deluded. I don’t see it that way.

I would be okay with a lot of what you said, if it weren’t for the way you ended your previous post: “This is especially true in areas where the Church is inconsistent with itself, and/or relies on patently false assumptions.”

To me, that is outright rejection of the authority of the Church, which “can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.” (CCC1792)

 

[fix]

Thanks Janet and fix

I have never seen a post claiming such license exist, nor do I see any argument the Church vacated its authority. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what the Magisterium has written, and what people understand these writings to mean. The issue at hand is when two disagree both claim to have a better formed conscience on the subject. And they base that idea on their conscience. So from a practical point of view we cannot separate our conscience form the church teaching to do so requires inhuman capability.

Not sure of your point. Objective truth cannot contradict objective truth. If one claims their subjective conscience is right and the objective truth taught by the Church is wrong, then we have an objectively erroneous conscience.

 

[rlg94086]

I would not call it freedom, but license.

A distinction without a difference fix. We have the freedom to choose poorly. To do so is licentious.

 

[fhansen]

Are you claiming one’s conscience is a magisterium equal to the magisterium set by Christ? If that is your argument then Christ must contradict Himself fairly often.

There is just no support for your argument. It would make subjective conscience a justification to reject the moral law. It would make conscience supreme. It would make conscience a type of god.

This is true. And our faith teaches that our consciences are gods, of sorts; they’re what’s left, as the “decision-maker” between right and wrong, after the rightful owner of the title “God” had been rejected through Adam’s disobedience. She also teaches that, with her guidance, the rightful decision-maker can regain His proper place in our beings but time and grace and trust are required for us to allow that to happen-it’s actually a life-long process. Because the CC is the authentic mouthpiece of God, justice demands that we follow her teachings and she must proclaim this fact so we’ll all know and understand it but for us to follow obediently we must learn, over time, how trustworthy those teachings are. I’m just saying that even for the most faithful of us, this injunction to obey can be easier to say than to practice- in every matter- but the correct mindset of a Catholic is to strive for this obedience and to assume that what he or she hears coming from the Magistereum is the truth. If one does not begin or continue to relinquish trust in their own opinion as opposed to the Churches’ opinion then they should probably begin to wonder why they would want to be Catholic. But, this, of course, is also a matter of conscience.

 

[fix]

There is nothing “free” about following conscience. As the “link upon link” demonstrate it is mandatory to follow one’s conscience.

A certain conscience, but following an erroneous certain conscience does not always absolve one from culpability. That is why She teaches following one’s conscience that is* properly* formed. Just follwoing what you wrote here would justify Nazism.

This is because, properly understood, conscience is not what the individual thinks is right, it is what the individual truly believes that God commands. Conscience is not a ticket to “believe what you want”. It is a command to divine the truth and live by God’s law. There seem to be two issues that are creating this argument.

That much I agree with. But, conscience is not an oracle. It can and does go wrong. Conscience needs a sure guide.

The first issue seems to be whether following one’s conscience is “free” as in “without recourse”. I have never said that. If I follow my conscience and it is ill-formed there may well be grave consequences for my soul. The catechism says that.

I agree again.

But choosing to do something my conscience says is wrong is inherently sinful. The catechism also says that.

It says that but you keep avoiding the full context.

So if you have a poorly formed conscience you are in a bad spot. There is no free lunch here, at least I am not advocating that. Catholics are required (not allowed) to follow their conscience. If that leads them into error, they pay the consequences. If they were truly well-meaning that may be mitigating. If they were self-deluded that will probably be aggravating.

Great, so why focus exclusively on following a conscience without adding the rest of it?

The second issue seems to be over whether it is possible to form one’s conscience in a way that is opposed to the Church’s teachings. It seems manifestly obvious to me that this can occur, and apparently it is equally obvious and manifest to others that it cannot.

It is manifest because that is what the Church teaches as has been cited.

I don’t know how to deal with this split. Some keep saying things like “just accept whatever the Church says”. But I don’t think that is what we are charged to do; and even if it were I don’t think my mind works like that.

Your mind “works” as you desire it to work unless you have some pathology.

I would note that many, many saintly people through the ages have disagreed with the Church from time to time. The Church itself has changed some of its teachings over time. (I know some don’t want to believe this, but its true.)

This is just propaganda. Please cite sources.

The Church has said that all of its teachings are mandatory and to be followed, but has declined to say that all of them are infallible and immutable. So I don’t know why its so unimaginable to believe that someone could legitimately have a disagreement of conscience today, but my take is that some believe that any disagreement with the Church must be disingenous or self-deluded. I don’t see it that way.

Let us use an example. Which Church teachings on sexual matters are free to change in the future? Which ones has She said one may disregard after prayer and study?

 

[fix]

A distinction without a difference fix. We have the freedom to choose poorly. To do so is licentious.

I am not arguing but true freedom is not choosing wrong. True freedom is choosing what is right.

 

[fix]

This is true. And our faith teaches that our consciences are gods, of sorts; they’re what’s left, as the “decision-maker” between right and wrong, after the rightful owner of the title “God” had been rejected through Adam’s disobedience. She also teaches that, with her guidance, the rightful decision-maker can regain His proper place in our beings but time and grace and trust are required for us to allow that to happen-it’s actually a life-long process. Because the CC is the authentic mouthpiece of God, justice demands that we follow her teachings and she must proclaim this fact so we’ll all know and understand it but for us to follow obediently we must learn, over time, how trustworthy those teachings are. I’m just saying that even for the most faithful of us, this injunction to obey can be easier to say than to practice- in every matter- but the correct mindset of a Catholic is to strive for this obedience and to assume that what he or she hears coming from the Magistereum is the truth. If one does not begin or continue to relinquish trust in their own opinion as opposed to the Churches’ opinion then they should probably begin to wonder why they would want to be Catholic. But, this, of course, is also a matter of conscience.

Yes, the division within those who reject the magisterium is a division they have fabricated themselves.

 

[TMC]

A certain conscience, but following an erroneous certain conscience does not always absolve one from culpability. That is why She teaches following one’s conscience that is* properly* formed. Just follwoing what you wrote here would justify Nazism.

That much I agree with. But, conscience is a an oracle. It can and does go wrong. Conscience needs a sure guide.

I agree again.
It says that but you keep avoiding the full context.

Great, so why focus exclusively on following a conscience without adding the rest of it?

It is manifest because that is what the Church teaches as has been cited.

Your mind “works” as you desire it to work unless you have some pathology.

This is just propaganda. Please cite sources.

Let us use an example. Which Church teachings on sexual matters are free to change in the future? Which ones has She said one may disregard after prayer and study?

If the Church knew what would change in the future, presumably they would be changed now. The Church’s teachings on many topics have changed. The filoque has been in and out and back in the Creed. Early Church fathers believed in universal salvation. In the Middle Ages the Church taught that only those in full commnunion with Rome could be saved. Now we are in between those positions. The Church’s current teachings on sexuality have not been declared infallible. I am not under any delusion that they are about to change, but they are hardly central to the faith and they could change at some time. Certainly if Christology and salvation can be rethought, the sex rules can be reinterpreted.

But whether they will change or can change has nothing to do with conscience, does it?

 

[Janet_S]

Fix, thanks for the link to this article. Everyone should read this:

zenit.org/article-19058?l=english

This article describes conscience very well, and points out that a faulty idea of conscience can be found at both ends of the spectrum:

The Catholic Church is far from alone today in facing polarization over the meaning and roles of conscience and authority. At one pole are those who hold that if only we attended more carefully to the magisterium instead of the zeitgeist, all would be well. The faithful should be willing to obey and their leaders to lead. Real conscience is the driver obeying the ecclesial satellite navigator, Magisterium, who tells us to turn left or right in the next 500 meters to go to the only destination that matters. At the opposite pole are those who argue that conscience must have “primacy.” Vatican II opened up a new space for Catholics to follow their own lights rather than rely too heavily on their pastors. A renewed appreciation of personal experience and interpretation, of individual goals pursued freely without undue interference, is required. Conscience, then, is the ability to switch off the ecclesial satellite navigator and make decisions for oneself.

Today, the prevailing (distorted) meaning of conscience is the “primacy of conscience” pole, leading the way to subjectivism and relativism. I see this very clearly as a problem in our Church today, and that’s one of the reasons I started this thread.

 

[fix]

If the Church knew what would change in the future, presumably they would be changed now.

That would mean every thing is up for grabs. Maybe Christ did not rise from the dead?

The Church’s teachings on many topics have changed. The filoque has been in and out and back in the Creed.

When has the Church rejected the principle?

Early Church fathers believed in universal salvation.

When did the Church teach this?

In the Middle Ages the Church taught that only those in full commnunion with Rome could be saved. Now we are in between those positions.

Again, this is not accurate.

The Church’s current teachings on sexuality have not been declared infallible.

If you measure truth exclsuively by infallible pronouncments then you misjudge what the Church teaches on the matter. To be sure, that some particular act has not need deemed infallible by the extraordinary magisterium does not mean it is fallible.

I am not under any delusion that they are about to change, but they are hardly central to the faith and they could change at some time. Certainly if Christology and salvation can be rethought, the sex rules can be reinterpreted.

You have presented no proof, only your understanding which contradicts what the Church has said.

But whether they will change or can change has nothing to do with conscience, does it?

If the eternal moral law can change then there is no need for conscience. There would be no need to align your conscience with truth as truth would be relative.

 

[fix]

Fix, thanks for the link to this article. Everyone should read this:

zenit.org/article-19058?l=english

This article describes conscience very well, and points out that a faulty idea of conscience can be found at both ends of the spectrum:

Today, the prevailing (distorted) meaning of conscience is the “primacy of conscience” pole, leading the way to subjectivism and relativism. I see this very clearly as a problem in our Church today, and that’s one of the reasons I started this thread.

People read back into history what they want to project onto it. We see the notion that conscience is supreme, which is a rather modern invention, mixed with the chronic assertion the Church “changed” this or that. Please note as you said before the issues are all sexual in nature. Wonder why?

 

[rlg94086]

If the Church knew what would change in the future, presumably they would be changed now. The Church’s teachings on many topics have changed. The filoque has been in and out and back in the Creed. Early Church fathers believed in universal salvation. In the Middle Ages the Church taught that only those in full commnunion with Rome could be saved. Now we are in between those positions. The Church’s current teachings on sexuality have not been declared infallible. I am not under any delusion that they are about to change, but they are hardly central to the faith and they could change at some time. Certainly if Christology and salvation can be rethought, the sex rules can be reinterpreted.

If that’s how you feel, then you are basically saying we can dissent on anything with the Church. I think there is a big distinction between the holy mysteries of the Trinity and morality.

But whether they will change or can change has nothing to do with conscience, does it?

Indeed it does, as your conscience is supposed to formed, as guided by the Church.

 

[fix]

If that’s how you feel, then you are basically saying we can dissent on anything with the Church. I think there is a big distinction between the holy mysteries of the Trinity and morality.

Indeed it does, as your conscience is supposed to formed, as guided by the Church.

Why would someone accept Church authority on one issue, but not another? If they deem the Church right here, but not there would that not mean the Church is not the authority, but we are?

If we accept Church teachings only when we agree then we must conclude Christ is not the authority behind the Church. If we conclude that then the parts we accept we accept on our authority, not His.