Conscience

[Janet_S]

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.

For Catholics, the regular means of discerning God’s commands is through the Church. The Church itself makes this claim; the Bible does too. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of Church as an invisible confederation of autonomous true believers (or something similar).

Seriously, how do you discern God’s law if you can’t rely on the Church? Is it through intuition?

I really don’t think there’s any way around it. Some things we just have to accept in faith.

I suppose for those of us who have spent a great deal of our lives away from the Church and doing things “our way” (and living with the consequences), having the Church to guide us is a welcomed change. We see the difference it has made in our lives when we put the teachings of the Church into practice (or at least try to). My experience of having it both ways has convinced me the Church is right. I’ve already listened to the Oprah’s, Dr Phil’s, the popular media, and the political parties. Now let me hear what the Pope says.

 

[Janet_S]

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?

Right now we’re a society that worships sex. It has replaced God for many people.

Some people want to stay in the Church, maybe for sentimental reasons, but her moral demands are too much and are in conflict with the worship of your other god (sex). This way, though primacy of conscience, you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[fix]

Right now we’re a society that worships sex. It has replaced God for many people.

Some people want to stay in the Church, maybe for sentimental reasons, but her moral demands are too much and are in conflict with the worship of your other god (sex). This way, though primacy of conscience, you can have your cake and eat it too.

As Cardinal Pell points out do those who favor sexual indiscipline do so because they fear following Church teaching will give them a guilty conscience or because following the teaching will leave their wishes unfulfilled?

 

[TMC]

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

When has the Church rejected the principle?

When did the Church teach this?

Again, this is not accurate.

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.

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

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.

OK, there is a lot here and I am sure that we will not agree and only spark more fighting, but if you want specifics on changing Church teachings I have given two - filoque and the understanding of EENS.

First, on the filoque - as you must know the original Nicence Creed said nothing about the origin of the Holy Spirit. In 382 “proceeds from the Father” was added to the Creed. The Third Council of Toledo added “from the Son” in the Sixth Century. In the Ninth Century Pope Leo III declared the filoque was not part of the Creed. Two hundred years later Benedict VIII added it back in. The Second Council of Lyon confirmed this in the Thirteenth Century. So for seven or eight hundred years there was a lot of back and forth on the issue of wether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son.

On the extent of salvation, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Clement of Alexandria all taught that all would be saved by God’s mercy. They taught before such things as catechisms and papal bulls but I think its safe to assume they were not alone in their beliefs. As far as the teaching on salvation in the Middle Ages, Unam Sanctum was pretty clear that only formal members of the Church are saved. That is not what is taught today.

But I am NOT saying we can dissent on anything we want, and I am not saying that because some things have changed in the past the Church has no authority. I have said over and over that believing whatever we want is NOT what consience is. We are to do what we believe God commands us to do. I don’t know if you don’t believe me when I say that, or just want to argue about other things.

 

[rpp]

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.

Fix,

First let me bravo in the way that you properly and fairly completely defended the Church’s teaching on conscience. You have done a very good job.

However, remember, there are areas of legitimate debate (not dissent) within the Church.

Here are examples of areas not open to debate (or dissent) in both theology and morality.

• Mary as the Mother of God.
• The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
• The Communion of Saints.
• All male priesthood.
• Abortion as a grave evil.
• Homosexual activity as seriously sinful.
• Artificial Birth Control

Here are some examples of areas that are open for discussion and debate.

• Mary as co-Mediatrix.
• Married priesthood in the Latin Rite churches.
• Various Marian visions.
• Immigration policies in the USA.
• How the death penalty is applied in the most countries.
• The justification of some of the wars currently being fought.
  These are examples only.

To disagree with a point on the first means to go against infallible Church teachings. When you do this, that is, at the very least, dissent.

Items on the second list are still a topic for debate and the Church has not either declared (or refuted) them as doctrine, is a matter of application for which no infallible declaration has been made or is a matter of discipline (not doctrine) which the Church is free to alter at any time. Thus there is no dissent from these, only debate and discussion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**Of course not. My position as I have stated it repeatedly is I believe exactly the same as TMC’s You continually leap 10 places to arrive at this equality of conscience idea. Such is utterly ridiculous. **

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.

Well the way I read things there certainly is. Some of you just ignore this. I’ve posted quotes here that were dismissed because the poster wasn’t going to go to a library to look up the book so they didn’t have to accept it if you can believe such an argument. You continue to overblow the entire thing. It makes no one’s individual conscience supreme in the sense that I think you mean it. It means we are not at liberty to not think for ourselves. We cannot simply blindly rely on what the church teaches. That question I raised has never been answered of course. We are told we are to follow Church teaching but somehow not blindly. Whatever that means. I suggest that it means what the poster does not what to be…that we are obligated as creatures and enbodied souls to make these determinations ourselves. We are required to give enormous weight to the opinion of the Church, and in the vast majjority of occasions we can come to agree that the church is right. No one, I submit may simply wait to be told. I submit that will not be an excuse we can give before God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well the way I read things there certainly is. Some of you just ignore this. I’ve posted quotes here that were dismissed because the poster wasn’t going to go to a library to look up the book so they didn’t have to accept it if you can believe such an argument. You continue to overblow the entire thing. It makes no one’s individual conscience supreme in the sense that I think you mean it. It means we are not at liberty to not think for ourselves. We cannot simply blindly rely on what the church teaches. That question I raised has never been answered of course. We are told we are to follow Church teaching but somehow not blindly. Whatever that means. I suggest that it means what the poster does not what to be…that we are obligated as creatures and enbodied souls to make these determinations ourselves. We are required to give enormous weight to the opinion of the Church, and in the vast majjority of occasions we can come to agree that the church is right. No one, I submit may simply wait to be told. I submit that will not be an excuse we can give before God.

Were you able to read when you were born? Did you understand the calculus? Could you drive a car, fly an airplane, or pack a parachute?

No. You had to learn those things as you matured. Similarly, you must learn right from wrong as you mature, and the Church is appointed by God to teach you.

You may reject the Church’s teaching on morality – just as you may reject man-made laws about drunk driving. But do not think yourself justified by your choice.

I suggest you visit a prison – there you can find men who freely admit to the most henious crimes, but claim they were justified. In their eyes, what they did was right.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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. *

Well I think actually you can read the DH title two ways. The fact remains that what you claim only refers to the Catholics relationship with society, yet is not placed in the society section but in the one regarding the individual and how he forms and follows or not his consciience.

But you are also correct, there are other citations in the chapter. in 1795 we are referred to GS 16.

1. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.

And of course I see why you do want to address 1790.

Lumen Gentium is not mentioned in the chapter in the CCC on moral conscience. Is there some particular part you believe speaks to conscience?

 

[fix]

Fix,

First let me bravo in the way that you properly and fairly completely defended the Church’s teaching on conscience. You have done a very good job.

However, remember, there are areas of legitimate debate (not dissent) within the Church.

Here are examples of areas not open to debate (or dissent) in both theology and morality.

• Mary as the Mother of God.
• The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
• The Communion of Saints.
• All male priesthood.
• Abortion as a grave evil.
• Homosexual activity as seriously sinful.Artificial Birth Control

• No disagreement

Here are some examples of areas that are open for discussion and debate.

• Mary as co-Mediatrix.

I believe she is the debate seems to be whether it should be made a dogma. Something can be very true without being a dogma
*

Married priesthood in the Latin Rite churches.

• Various Marian visions.
• Immigration policies in the USA.
• How the death penalty is applied in the most countries.
• The justification of some of the wars currently being fought.

These are examples only.

Sure, but what has that to do with this topic?

To disagree with a point on the first means to go against infallible Church teachings. When you do this, that is, at the very least, dissent.

You have a mixture of disciplines and prudential decisions. They are in different theological categories.

Items on the second list are still a topic for debate and the Church has not either declared (or refuted) them as doctrine, is a matter of application for which no infallible declaration has been made or is a matter of discipline (not doctrine) which the Church is free to alter at any time. Thus there is no dissent from these, only debate and discussion.

I think this is another topic.

I am not sure why you bring these items up? We are talking about faith and morals and the extraordinary and ordinary and universal magisterium.

 

[rpp]

• No disagreement
  I believe she is the debate seems to be whether it should be made a dogma. Something can be very true without being a dogma Sure, but what has that to do with this topic?

You have a mixture of disciplines and prudential decisions. They are in different theological categories.

I think this is another topic.

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to examine my post. However, it was not written in a manner where different phrases and sentences could be separated. It was a single point that meant to read as a whole.

 

[Mousey]

And of course I see why you do want to address 1790.

Did you miss post 79

1790 doesn’t stand alone, it is followed by an explanation that following your conscience can still result in sin for which you would be culpable. One of the reasons is “bad example by others” (most probably another Catholic who is teaching “primacy of conscience” ) and another is “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching.”

I’ve posted quotes here that were dismissed because the poster wasn’t going to go to a library to look up the book

I can’t seem to find the post you are referring to. Nor anyone saying they wouldn’t go to a library to look up said book.

 

[fix]

Well the way I read things there certainly is. Some of you just ignore this. I’ve posted quotes here that were dismissed because the poster wasn’t going to go to a library to look up the book so they didn’t have to accept it if you can believe such an argument. You continue to overblow the entire thing. It makes no one’s individual conscience supreme in the sense that I think you mean it. It means we are not at liberty to not think for ourselves. We cannot simply blindly rely on what the church teaches.

What is “blind” about obeying Christ? If one reasons the Church is true one submits as one submits to Christ. Your notion that assent is blind is unsupportable.

That question I raised has never been answered of course. We are told we are to follow Church teaching but somehow not blindly. Whatever that means. I suggest that it means what the poster does not what to be…that we are obligated as creatures and enbodied souls to make these determinations ourselves. We are required to give enormous weight to the opinion of the Church,

No not enormous weight. He who hears you hears Me. It is Christ speaking through His vicar. What is so hard to grasp?

and in the vast majjority of occasions we can come to agree that the church is right. No one, I submit may simply wait to be told. I submit that will not be an excuse we can give before God.

Again, this is says you reserve the “right” to reject His teachings. It makes no sense. If your conscience is superior to His truth then conscience is supreme to you.

 

[fix]

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to examine my post. However, it was not written in a manner where different phrases and sentences could be separated. It was a single point that meant to read as a whole.

I am missing your point still. I am not claiming one must agree with a prudential decision about immigration by the USCCB. Iam claiming when the magisterium speaks on issues of faith and morals we are requires to submit. The two issues seem to be contraception and homosexual acts. They cannot be changed or reinterpreted to be licit as per the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m reminded of a story told about a fundamentalist revival in the backwoods of Arkansas. The fire-and-brimstone preacher worked his congregation up to a fervor and shouted, “Are you willin’ to do the Lord’s biddin’?”

And an old fellow shot to his feet and shouted, “I’m ready to do whatever the Lord asks of me!” Then he though a minute and added, “Provided of course, that it’s honorable.”

 

[rpp]

I am missing your point still. I am not claiming one must agree with a prudential decision about immigration by the USCCB. Iam claiming when the magisterium speaks on issues of faith and morals we are requires to submit. The two issues seem to be contraception and homosexual acts. They cannot be changed or reinterpreted to be licit as per the Church.

Fix,

We agree! And, it seems, completely. Really!

I was merely addressing your comment to rlg94086 a while back where he said some people may disagree with some of what the Church proposes. My post was meant merely to demonstrate the difference, which seems to have been lost on some, of doctrine vs discipline and infallible dogma vs legitimate theological exploration.

Also, it was not flattery when I said you did a good job of explaining the role of conscience. It was a sincere appreciation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Were you able to read when you were born? Did you understand the calculus? Could you drive a car, fly an airplane, or pack a parachute?

No. You had to learn those things as you matured. Similarly, you must learn right from wrong as you mature, and the Church is appointed by God to teach you.

You may reject the Church’s teaching on morality – just as you may reject man-made laws about drunk driving. But do not think yourself justified by your choice.

**First your examples are hardly correct here. The fact that some one teaches me calculus does not prevent me in the end from knowing more than they.So your argument fails immediately. The Church is the first and foremost authority to be sure, but I continue to argue that we are not permitted to use the defense of the Church told me what to believe and I just obey. It cannot work that way. The fact that a minority of Catholics believe this causes great concern for all of us. I continue to not understand why you think anyone would feel “justified” as you put it. I havent a clue what you are driving at. We are all accountable for our choices whether we follow the church or not on any issue. She cannot protect us from being wrong, even if She were wrong. **

I suggest you visit a prison – there you can find men who freely admit to the most henious crimes, but claim they were justified. In their eyes, what they did was right.

**I dare say I’ve been in more prisons than you and many many more jails, hundreds of visits, so I do know something about the men and women there. Most in fact do not justify their actions, and I have no idea what you think this has to do with the issue at hand. I don’t claim that if in a rare instance someone does feel they cannot follow the Church, that is certainly no assurance at all that they will be granted a pass by God. Under either theory, one still stands before God and must account for their choices. **

 

[rpp]

**I dare say I’ve been in more prisons than you and many many more jails, hundreds of visits, so I do know something about the men and women there. Most in fact do not justify their actions, and I have no idea what you think this has to do with the issue at hand. I don’t claim that if in a rare instance someone does feel they cannot follow the Church, that is certainly no assurance at all that they will be granted a pass by God. Under either theory, one still stands before God and must account for their choices. **

Um, have you read your signature line?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Did you miss post 79

What was your point?

I can’t seem to find the post you are referring to. Nor anyone saying they wouldn’t go to a library to look up said book.

Sorry, but we have been having this discussion for a long time and on multiple threads. Many of the same people are on all, but not you apparently. I don’t know if that thread is still open, no one has apparently posted to it for a while and its dropped off the first page I believe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

**I dare say I’ve been in more prisons than you and many many more jails, **
How long have you been out on parole?

 

[Janet_S]

Well I think actually you can read the DH title two ways. The fact remains that what you claim only refers to the Catholics relationship with society, yet is not placed in the society section but in the one regarding the individual and how he forms and follows or not his consciience.

But you are also correct, there are other citations in the chapter. in 1795 we are referred to GS 16.

1. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.

And of course I see why you do want to address 1790.

Lumen Gentium is not mentioned in the chapter in the CCC on moral conscience. Is there some particular part you believe speaks to conscience?

There’s only so much room we have in one post. I was developing one idea, the idea that The Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) cited in the CCC is frequently misunderstood by many people to support their idea of “primacy of conscience.” That was my point, that was what I was writing about.

If you want to understand what Vatican II taught about the relationship between an individual Catholic and the Church, read Lumen Gentium. If you want to understand the relationship between the individual, the individual’s right to religious freedom, and civil authorities, read Dignitatis Humanae. But don’t try to apply what Dignitatis Humanae says about conscience to an individual Catholic’s right to dissent from Church teaching. That is not what this document is about, and the Council Fathers made that clear.

Read the document if you don’t believe me:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html