Conscience

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**Jayne has said repeatedly that we are to always always follow the Magisterium, and then said, but we are not to follow blindly. I have asked repeatedly what that means. If you follow always aren’t you following blindly without consideration of any other point of view? I would say the statement is contradictory. Now please stop asking me nefarious things about this. I didn’t state it, i asked how to resolve the contradicition it implies. As I said, so far, no answer. **

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

**Nothing is hard to grasp as you so snidely say. However, I do not agree that when the Church speaks Christ speaks. The church is made of of people, who are sinful and err like we all are. I believe most truly that the Spirit does prevent the Church from err in matters of morals and faith. But I don’t know its always before the fact, rather than after the act. I don’t think claiming that every word of the Church actually comes from the lips of Jesus is somethinj that one would want to pursue historically in the Church, as others have pointed out. **

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.

**Of course, I have said no such thing. I make no claim that my conscience is superior to the Church’s or for that matter an single individual. I’m rather tired of this continual refusal to read what is said but to twist it into some interpretation that suits your needs for argument. **

 

[rlg94086]

How long have you been out on parole?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How long have you been out on parole?

So far you have overtly called me a chlld and now a parolee. Why exactly are you allowed to speak this way and get away with it? You Sir are rude and obnoxious. Please refrain from speaking to me further, you apparently are not serious in your desire to discuss issues but only throw pejorative slanders around.

 

[rpp]

fix;3130571:

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.

**Jayne has said repeatedly that we are to always always follow the Magisterium, and then said, but we are not to follow blindly. I have asked repeatedly what that means. If you follow always aren’t you following blindly without consideration of any other point of view? I would say the statement is contradictory. Now please stop asking me nefarious things about this. I didn’t state it, i asked how to resolve the contradicition it implies. As I said, so far, no answer. **

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

**Nothing is hard to grasp as you so snidely say. However, I do not agree that when the Church speaks Christ speaks. The church is made of of people, who are sinful and err like we all are. I believe most truly that the Spirit does prevent the Church from err in matters of morals and faith. But I don’t know its always before the fact, rather than after the act. I don’t think claiming that every word of the Church actually comes from the lips of Jesus is somethinj that one would want to pursue historically in the Church, as others have pointed out.

** 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.

**Of course, I have said no such thing. I make no claim that my conscience is superior to the Church’s or for that matter an single individual. I’m rather tired of this continual refusal to read what is said but to twist it into some interpretation that suits your needs for argument. **

No one is twisting anything you say. However you hasve not responded to several posts that point out some inconsistencies with your statement and Church teachings.

I would add that your tone in your response to Fix does not seem to be consistent with what is in your signature line. I say nothing “nefarious”, “snide” or “twisting” in any of his comments. A little more charity is in order. If you feel angry or upset, then perhaps you should not post.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

I never saw you posting anything like that either (telling someone to go to a library.) If you did post this suggestion, it wasn’t on this thread.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Thanks Jayne for clearing it up. I have perused LG but found nothing that refers to conscience or formation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No one is twisting anything you say. However you hasve not responded to several posts that point out some inconsistencies with your statement and Church teachings.

I would add that your tone in your response to Fix does not seem to be consistent with what is in your signature line. I say nothing “nefarious”, “snide” or “twisting” in any of his comments. A little more charity is in order. If you feel angry or upset, then perhaps you should not post.

Thanks for taking me to task. I guess you laughter at vern’s snotty little remark was charitable as well?

I do get a tad tired of being asked 1.what don’t you understand? 2. get it? 3. What is so hard to grasp. All these phrases, and yes I’ve been guilty on occassion myself, are meant to deride the reader as someone who has some mental defect which makes it hard for them to understand simple concepts.

I am actually not upset. I stopped being upset here about 3 weeks ago. i am however determined that a fair statement of Church teachings are made here as best i can discern that to be, and second I will not be anybody’s punching bag. I refrain from “turning people in” because I’m thick skinned enough to take most of it, and I sense that it is largely used here to get rid of people who can’t be bested by argument. I have been on many forums,most of which are entirely too liberal in allowing bad language and baiting and ad hominem arguments. That does not occur here for the most part, but it is interesting that I get tagged for calling someone’s argument “silly” while folks can call me about anything they desire with zero penalty. Either the admin folks aren’t looking much, or as I said, they only respond to those who complain.

 

[dessert]

**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. **

You better account for your choices BEFORE you stand before Him
because then it will be tooo late.
If a person is silent they are not using their conscience and not admitting guilt and if they make excuses or try to justify what they did, they are not admitting guilt.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I never saw you posting anything like that either (telling someone to go to a library.) If you did post this suggestion, it wasn’t on this thread.

I’m fairly sure it was from the thread where the woman was expressing difficulty with the teaching on homosexuality. I never said it was posted on this thread, at least as best I can recall. I may be in err, but I think its that thread. Somebody was pulling my posts from some threads and posting them on others, and double posting responses. It got a bit confusing. I think one thread has been closed or has disappeared.

 

[Janet_S]

**Of course, I have said no such thing. I make no claim that my conscience is superior to the Church’s or for that matter an single individual. I’m rather tired of this continual refusal to read what is said but to twist it into some interpretation that suits your needs for argument. **

You did say on another thread that the Church had “no business” speaking out against homosexuality.

I’ve read enough of your posts to realize you give lip service to the Church, but really don’t agree with many (or any) of the moral teachings at all. Maybe you aren’t aware of what the Church teaches, so you don’t see the discrepancy between your beliefs and the Church’s, but the differences are wide.

I cannot understand why anyone with your bleak opinion of Catholicism would ever want to be identified as Catholic. Especially considering you believe Catholicism is a towering menace, comparable to Naziism, and anyone who would follow the teachings of the Church isn’t fit for public office.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You better account for your choices BEFORE you stand before Him
because then it will be tooo late.
If a person is silent they are not using their conscience and not admitting guilt and if they make excuses or try to justify what they did, they are not admitting guilt.

I’m not quite sure what you are saying or what you are disagreeing with or agreeing with. Sorry. I’m not sure who you think was silent? And how does silence imply one is not “using their conscience?” You should I think read further back to understand the context of what i said. At least I think you are talking about criminals, which was not the real subject of what I was referring to.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m not quite sure what you are saying or what you are disagreeing with or agreeing with. Sorry. I’m not sure who you think was silent? And how does silence imply one is not “using their conscience?” You should I think read further back to understand the context of what i said. At least I think you are talking about criminals, which was not the real subject of what I was referring to.

SpiritMeadow, do you really think that you are more capable than the Magesterium of the Catholic Church to determine right from wrong? Does your conscience actually tell you that YOU are smarter than the Magesterium? That question is rhetorical, of course it doesn’t, unless you are insanely proud.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks for taking me to task. I guess you laughter at vern’s snotty little remark was charitable as well?

I do get a tad tired of being asked 1.what don’t you understand? 2. get it? 3. What is so hard to grasp. All these phrases, and yes I’ve been guilty on occassion myself, are meant to deride the reader as someone who has some mental defect which makes it hard for them to understand simple concepts.

I am actually not upset. I stopped being upset here about 3 weeks ago. i am however determined that a fair statement of Church teachings are made here as best i can discern that to be, and second I will not be anybody’s punching bag. I refrain from “turning people in” because I’m thick skinned enough to take most of it, and I sense that it is largely used here to get rid of people who can’t be bested by argument. I have been on many forums,most of which are entirely too liberal in allowing bad language and baiting and ad hominem arguments. That does not occur here for the most part, but it is interesting that I get tagged for calling someone’s argument “silly” while folks can call me about anything they desire with zero penalty. Either the admin folks aren’t looking much, or as I said, they only respond to those who complain.

It is just another of the great ironies, what you have to remember is the concept of any other conscience except say yours and mine being ill formed was never considered, and thus many posts were never discerned at all. Many are not just sure their interpretation is free of error they are in fact closed to the idea such is possible. Outsiders quickly see the danger

Jesus said ->Magisterium said-> poster said

So if the poster is free of all error dictatorship is best so long as they are the only dictator. Another irony is the Church does not teach this stand or back this stand. In fact the Church has many teachings which oppose such any idea. You will find this general concept repeated over and over in the forms. Read what the homosexuals said read the contraceptions posts and compare them to the known science. Do not feel alone, nor rejected by the Church

 

[dessert]

I’m not quite sure what you are saying or what you are disagreeing with or agreeing with. Sorry. I’m not sure who you think was silent? And how does silence imply one is not “using their conscience?” You should I think read further back to understand the context of what i said. At least I think you are talking about criminals, which was not the real subject of what I was referring to.

I was thinking you were speaking of the prison criminals.

Silence is not really an admission of guilt but what can a person conclude if one does not speak?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You did say on another thread that the Church had “no business” speaking out against homosexuality.

**I think that you would have to be a bit more specific for me to respond. At best all I can do is theorize. Based on some of your following comments, I appears to me you do not “hear” what I say at all so I’m doubtful I said anything like what you suggest here. **

I’ve read enough of your posts to realize you give lip service to the Church, but really don’t agree with many (or any) of the moral teachings at all. Maybe you aren’t aware of what the Church teaches, so you don’t see the discrepancy between your beliefs and the Church’s, but the differences are wide.

**You really have no basis for that statement. You apparently have very little idea what I think about the Church and her teachings. I am probably not as aware as you are. I would think there are very few Catholics who have actually read an encyclical. I’ve read quite a number, but no where near them all, or all of the ECF, though that remains a firm goal of mine. I’m moving along slow but sure. Since you of course don’t really know my views, I thinjk perhaps you cannot honestly say that. But I appreciate that you wish to understand what i think. **

I cannot understand why anyone with your bleak opinion of Catholicism would ever want to be identified as Catholic. Especially considering you believe Catholicism is a towering menace, comparable to Naziism, and anyone who would follow the teachings of the Church isn’t fit for public office.

**My opinion of Catholicism is anything but bleak. I think She’s in pretty good shape, amazing shape in fact given a history longer than any institution in the world. Where you get notions that I find the Church a menace is beyond me. Can you show wherein I have said this? Or again, are you just so disgusted with me that you aer willing to malign my integrity and beliefs in an attempt to cast mud on me or get rid of me? I never of course compared the Church to nazism, I used the Nuremburg trials as an explanation of what is wrong with the concept of “following orders” . Again, yuou deliberately twist it into something else. I have of course not said that anyone who follows Church teachings is unfit for office. What I said is that American voters will not tolerate Catholics running for office if they understand that all Catholics are required to follow the Church before anything else. YOu may be too young to remember,but I was a kid when JFK ran for office, and remember the speech he had to give so that the public would understand they wouldn’t be electing the Pope in the guise of JFK.

Jayne, I have I think attempted ot be friendly, or at least civil. Why are you determined to distort everything I say? **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, do you really think that you are more capable than the Magesterium of the Catholic Church to determine right from wrong? Does your conscience actually tell you that YOU are smarter than the Magesterium? That question is rhetorical, of course it doesn’t, unless you are insanely proud.

You quote me and then you post something entirely different and having nothing to do with what I said. but to answer you.

Of course I do not feel more capable, and I’ve never said I am. My conscience certainly does not tell me that, nor does it tell me that I am even smarter than you. If the question is rhetorical then what are you making it for? Simply to somehow humble me because you believe I believe I know more than the Magisterium? You might be the one who needs to look at the pride thing.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Of course I do not feel more capable, and I’ve never said I am. My conscience certainly does not tell me that, nor does it tell me that I am even smarter than you. If the question is rhetorical then what are you making it for? Simply to somehow humble me because you believe I believe I know more than the Magisterium? You might be the one who needs to look at the pride thing.

So if your conscience tells you that you are not more capable than the Magesterium at determining right from wrong, then, logically, it tells you to adopt the teaching of the magesterium as your own moral views. And so you don’t need to use “primacy of conscience” and be an objector, since you agree with the Church.

This is wonderful!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is just another of the great ironies, what you have to remember is the concept of any other conscience except say yours and mine being ill formed was never considered, and thus many posts were never discerned at all. Many are not just sure their interpretation is free of error they are in fact closed to the idea such is possible. Outsiders quickly see the danger

Jesus said ->Magisterium said-> poster said

So if the poster is free of all error dictatorship is best so long as they are the only dictator. Another irony is the Church does not teach this stand or back this stand. In fact the Church has many teachings which oppose such any idea. You will find this general concept repeated over and over in the forms. Read what the homosexuals said read the contraceptions posts and compare them to the known science. Do not feel alone, nor rejected by the Church

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks for taking me to task. I guess you laughter at vern’s snotty little remark was charitable as well?

It was I who laughed at Vern’s joke, not rpp (at least as a post ). And, that’s what it was…a joke…not a “snotty little remark.” You said you spent a lot of time in prisons and jails. You didn’t mention in what capacity.

I’m sorry you didn’t find Vern’s joke funny, but I thought it was hilarious. And, no, I don’t think it is uncharitable to laugh at a very funny joke.

 

[rpp]

Thanks for taking me to task. I guess you laughter at vern’s snotty little remark was charitable as well?

I was not aware that you could see me from where you are. I do not have my web-cam turned on so how could you see me. I did not respond to his post so how could you possibly know what my reaction to it was? Besides, do you not have a sense of humor?

I do get a tad tired of being asked 1.what don’t you understand? 2. get it? 3. What is so hard to grasp. All these phrases, and yes I’ve been guilty on occassion myself, are meant to deride the reader as someone who has some mental defect which makes it hard for them to understand simple concepts.

Perhaps you should listen rather than get defensive and attack the innocent like you did to me here. There are people here who are actually sincere, gentle and charitable. If we employ a little humility I think we can all move forward. Defensiveness is not needed here.

I am actually not upset. I stopped being upset here about 3 weeks ago. i am however determined that a fair statement of Church teachings are made here as best i can discern that to be, and second I will not be anybody’s punching bag. I refrain from “turning people in” because I’m thick skinned enough to take most of it, and I sense that it is largely used here to get rid of people who can’t be bested by argument. I have been on many forums,most of which are entirely too liberal in allowing bad language and baiting and ad hominem arguments. That does not occur here for the most part, but it is interesting that I get tagged for calling someone’s argument “silly” while folks can call me about anything they desire with zero penalty. Either the admin folks aren’t looking much, or as I said, they only respond to those who complain.

I am not sure what the reference to “3 weeks ago” means, but I would say by the tone of this message, and your lashing out on this and other threads this afternoon that do appear to be upset about something.

I have seen no one bait you or call you names on this or any other thread where I have seen you post today.

I would like to ask you to do something very difficult, at least it is for me. I ask that you give people the benefit of the doubt. and listen with the spirit of humility. The more of us who can do this, the better and more Godly we all will be.