Conscience

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

Not really, someone invited me to go to a prison and told me what I would find there. Given that I practiced criminal law for 20 years, I was more than familiar with prisoners in both jails and several prisons, both pre-conviction and post. I was simply telling the poster that convicted persons generally in my experience don’t attempt to explain away and justify their guilt.

And silence…in this country silence conveys nothing, I think that concept of not being required to speak goes back to magna Carta, but I’m not entirely sure. Should you be called for jury duty, please do your moral duty and inform the court that you cannot follow this rule if in fact you continue to believe that silence must be hiding some guilt. You will be released from jury duty as you should be, since both sides are desirous of a fair and impartial jury who will follow the law as given them. (We’ll lead jury nullification issues aside).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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!

Sorry kiddo, but no cigar. Your syllogistically incorrect. And I would also argue theologically incorrect.

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?

**Vern has said other things in the past. It was not meant as a joke nor have his other slights been. You are most correct that I did mix you up with someone else, who has posted and corrected my error. I very much apologize for having inferred your unkindness to me. :bowdown2: Cute little icon, but I do mean it sincerely. **

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.

**There are many here who have indeed been most kind. As I’ve said before we carry on a lively PM. I am happy to add you to the list of those who want to discuss without slinging mud and constant gotcha moments on the most perepheral issues. **

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’ve only really lashed out on one that I know of, and its rather agregiious to me at least. What is the point you wish to make. You’ve already said lets not be defensive and now you continue but add more “threads” which you find me lacking in. I am not lashing out, but simply stating directly what i mean. I use no improper words or call any names. **

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

**Well hopefully you arent spending all your time following me, but I guess you’ve missed a few. What you have not seen i would guess proves very little. **

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.

**Yes i’ve asked folks to do this a number of times myself. Unfortunately my name seems to start the engines. Little I say is even bothered to be read at this point, its just taken apart, and twisted into something that can be properly objected to. Why else do I have to repeat to the same people over and over again the same statements? **

 

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by Mousey View Post
Did you miss post 79

What was your point?

Oops almost missed this. You said

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow View Post
And of course I see why you do want to address 1790.

Yet it was answered in post 79. It was addressed.

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 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.

Was asking what the point was another deriding question?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sorry kiddo, but no cigar. Your syllogistically incorrect. And I would also argue theologically incorrect.

You can’t have it both ways. If your conscience tells you that the Magesterium should be followed on moral teachings, then your conscience can’t also tell you to disregard the Magesterium on moral teachings. Your position is a contradiction and therefore absurd.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not really, someone invited me to go to a prison and told me what I would find there. Given that I practiced criminal law for 20 years, I was more than familiar with prisoners in both jails and several prisons, both pre-conviction and post. I was simply telling the poster that convicted persons generally in my experience don’t attempt to explain away and justify their guilt.

Then why would they need criminal lawyers?

However, I’ve had occasion to work with prisoners in both military and civilian prisoners – and a great many of them feel they had a right to do what they did.

Perhaps the classic example is an interview conducted at the juvenile facility from which the killers of Michael Jordan’s father had been released. The interviewer noted that none of the inmates expressed any sympathy for the deceased or for his grieving son, and asked some of them, point-blank, what they would say to Michael Jordan about his father’s murder.

“Wouldn’t say nuthin’. He had somethin’ to do with it, didn’t he?”

The astounded interviewer replied, “What could Michael Jordan possibly have had to do with his father’s murder?”

And the kid replied, “If he hadn’ta give him all that money, they wouldn’ta had to rob him.”

In working with sex-abuse programs I have had child molestors tell me their victims “wanted it.”

 

[dessert]

Not really, someone invited me to go to a prison and told me what I would find there. Given that I practiced criminal law for 20 years, I was more than familiar with prisoners in both jails and several prisons, both pre-conviction and post. I was simply telling the poster that convicted persons generally in my experience don’t attempt to explain away and justify their guilt.

And silence…in this country silence conveys nothing, I think that concept of not being required to speak goes back to magna Carta, but I’m not entirely sure. Should you be called for jury duty, please do your moral duty and inform the court that you cannot follow this rule if in fact you continue to believe that silence must be hiding some guilt. You will be released from jury duty as you should be, since both sides are desirous of a fair and impartial jury who will follow the law as given them. (We’ll lead jury nullification issues aside).

Thanks for the tip I never want to do jury duty anyways.
I’ve been on the list but never called and was going to use work as an excuse . But now I don’t work.
Most judges overturn whatever is decided.
Yes anyone can claim the fifth but you won’t get to, in heaven.
Well, silence is not GOLDEN, would you agree to that?

 

[dessert]

Then why would they need criminal lawyers?

However, I’ve had occasion to work with prisoners in both military and civilian prisoners – and a great many of them feel they had a right to do what they did.

Perhaps the classic example is an interview conducted at the juvenile facility from which the killers of Michael Jordan’s father had been released. The interviewer noted that none of the inmates expressed any sympathy for the deceased or for his grieving son, and asked some of them, point-blank, what they would say to Michael Jordan about his father’s murder.

“Wouldn’t say nuthin’. He had somethin’ to do with it, didn’t he?”

The astounded interviewer replied, “What could Michael Jordan possibly have had to do with his father’s murder?”

And the kid replied, “If he hadn’ta give him all that money, they wouldn’ta had to rob him.”

In working with sex-abuse programs I have had child molestors tell me their victims “wanted it.”

That sounds like justifying to me. But many justify what they do or believe and are not criminals. In fact most people I know justify what they do. The logic they use is so irratianal sometimes isn’t it?
They are putting the blame on the other person because they won’t acknowledge any guilt or conscience about their own action.

This is different than the person that says I needed money to buy some food for my family, which can be the real reason but the end doesn’t justify the means .

 

[Janet_S]

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

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

How do you reconcile this from LG 25 with “primacy of conscience?”

 

[Janet_S]

**
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’m surprised you don’t remember that, but here is what you said in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3060627&postcount=187

 

[catharina]

spiritmeadow - In addition you’ve repeated here what you’d said on at least one other thread, namely, that you can’t imagine that democracy-loving Americans would be willing to vote for any Catholic candidate if they believed that all Catholics would be faithful to the teachings of the Church (against abortion).

I responded by quoting you from another thread - with a response I gave twice and now for a third time - still unanswered by you:

I mentioned that in this past year a very well-known, elected (though retired) national public servant died from cancer and he had been elected repeatedly AS a known Catholic who supported the Church re pro-life. I’m afraid to state his name again here, for fear that’s what led to the closing of the thread on Abortion and Conscience. I mentioned that since you live in Iowa you almost certainly had heard of him and his work, since he was from the State next-door (Illinois). I too wonder why/how you want to consider yourself Catholic? I don’t understand what you believe as a Catholic. Whilt you seem to feel free to question others’ faith and feelings, you seem to be a bit slow in explaining yourself

 

[Mousey]

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 watched a documentary of death row prisoner. Not one of them took responsibility for the murders they committed. They all blamed the victim. Like you said they felt justified. I know a guard so I asked how he felt about your statement. He agreed with it. He said that generally they felt justified. They blamed circumstances or that their crime wasn’t as bad as others. I think it is human nature to justify what we do. Perhaps that is why confession is not very popular. Hence our Conscience is also compromised with excuses.

 

[Janet_S]

I watched a documentary of death row prisoner. Not one of them took responsibility for the murders they committed. They all blamed the victim. Like you said they felt justified. I know a guard so I asked how he felt about your statement. He agreed with it. He said that generally they felt justified. They blamed circumstances or that their crime wasn’t as bad as others. I think it is human nature to justify what we do. Perhaps that is why confession is not very popular. Hence our Conscience is also compromised with excuses.

You can’t fool your conscience for too long. It always strikes back at you.

Here’s an article about conscience from a natural law perspective:

The Revenge of Conscience
by J. Budziszewski
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3541

 

[Mousey]

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? .

This does seem contradictory doesn’t it. The problem is that I understand but I am not sure I can explain it.
The Church says that you should not steal. So as a person who believes in the Church I believe that it is morally right not to steal. However because I don’t blindly follow the Church I make myself aware why it is wrong to steal.
That is not to say that every teaching I will investigate. Frankly put if I agree with it I probably won’t. On the hot button issues I will. But like the example of stealing I probably won’t question why it is immoral. The Church calls them natural law. We know things are immoral without having it spelled out to us. This is generally true granted there are social paths that do not have this inborn compass but most of us do.
Basically you accept the teachings but you do so with knowledge of why.
Blindly you wouldn’t care why.
Sorry I can’t express it better.

 

[Janet_S]

This does seem contradictory doesn’t it. The problem is that I understand but I am not sure I can explain it.
The Church says that you should not steal. So as a person who believes in the Church I believe that it is morally right not to steal. However because I don’t blindly follow the Church I make myself aware why it is wrong to steal.
That is not to say that every teaching I will investigate. Frankly put if I agree with it I probably won’t. On the hot button issues I will. But like the example of stealing I probably won’t question why it is immoral. The Church calls them natural law. We know things are immoral without having it spelled out to us. This is generally true granted there are social paths that do not have this inborn compass but most of us do.
Basically you accept the teachings but you do so with knowledge of why.
Blindly you wouldn’t care why.
Sorry I can’t express it better.

John Paul discussed this in his encyclical Fides et Ratio:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

Thomas Aquinas argued that the light of reason (natural law) and the light of faith come from God; so there can be no contradiction between them.

JPII says this:

FR8–But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.

This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason.

JPII also pointed out (in section 49 & 50 of F & R) that the Church subscribes to no particular philosophy; that sometimes philosophy falls into error; and when it does, it is the Magisterium’s duty to respond clearly and strongly to correct misunderstanding of revelation.

I think the Church is like a parent who tells us what we should and should not do and also tells us the reasons why.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

Perhaps you are confusing ‘conscience’ with ‘gut feeling’. Your conscience can tell you to reject church teaching because of a gut feeling, or to accept church teaching because you know it is from God, and ignore your gut feeling.

It is possible (and maybe not even unusual) to accept everything the church says, while still questioning it, and having the gut feeling that it’s wrong in some cases.

 

[fhansen]

Janet S:

God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

I think the Church is like a parent who tells us what we should and should not do and also tells us the reasons why.

I think this goes far in resolving the problem of “primacy of conscience” vs. “blind faith”. The conscience and reasoning powers of a believer aren’t turned off or set aside so that they can believe blindly in a strange voice. Rather, they are hearing the Shepherd calling and responding to the voice of truth, amidst all the other voices in the world including their own. They recognize that voice as familiar because it comes from the One who created them so that even if, at times, it speaks of things they don’t fully understand, they still have an innate trust in it. The only reason that this is possible at all isn’t because we’ve forced ourselves to believe something which goes against our consciences or against reason; it’s possible because there’s a God who took the initiative to reach out to us first, to call us through His Church. Faith is a gift but it doesn’t grow without our cooperation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That sounds like justifying to me. But many justify what they do or believe and are not criminals. In fact most people I know justify what they do. The logic they use is so irratianal sometimes isn’t it?
They are putting the blame on the other person because they won’t acknowledge any guilt or conscience about their own action.

This is different than the person that says I needed money to buy some food for my family, which can be the real reason but the end doesn’t justify the means .

That’s exactly my point – people who do wrong, justify it by appealing to their own consciences. Left to our own devices without teaching, we would be as moral as we would be literate.

One’s conscience must be informed by the Church – only then, with this external yardstick, can one reliably tell right from wrong.

 

[catharina]

That’s exactly my point – people who do wrong, justify it by appealing to their own consciences. Left to our own devices without teaching, we would be as moral as we would be literate.

One’s conscience must be informed by the Church – only then, with this external yardstick, can one reliably tell right from wrong.

In this world of so many beliefs and in this nation of so many distorted calls to unbelief, how can we be anything but humbled and grateful that we have received the Good Shepherd and His Church? Our call to faithfulness is eternal.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Oops almost missed this. You said

Yet it was answered in post 79. It was addressed.

Was asking what the point was another deriding question?

Nope, I just didn’t see your point. I recognize that the CCC reference has other sections that help explain how one can help in determining conscience and how it can come to error etc. The first sentence of 1790 sets the general proposition regarding one’s responsibilites. The second sentence warns however one’s conscience can be in error, the remaining sections explain how one’s conscience can be in error, Willful ignorance for instance. The sections go on to explain when one’s ignorance is forgiven and when one remains culpable. I think they are perfectly good statements in every respect. I deny nor disbelieve none of them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks for the tip I never want to do jury duty anyways.
I’ve been on the list but never called and was going to use work as an excuse . But now I don’t work.
Most judges overturn whatever is decided.
Yes anyone can claim the fifth but you won’t get to, in heaven.
Well, silence is not GOLDEN, would you agree to that?

Good! I am a firm believer that those who don’t want to serve shouldn’t. I have handled oh goodness, probably in the vicinity of 10,000 cases probably more in those years. I can think of maybe 5 times in all that time that I even witnessed a judge overturning a jury verdict. It does, I admit, occur with a greater frequency at the appellate level, but that is usually due to judicial or attorney error.

I would imagine that remaining quiet before God would not be a good idea.

I don’t know that silence is golden, but then I don’t exactly know what that means. I believe it is an excellent rule, one meant to protect the “little” guy against the great and unending power of the state. We believe it is the state that must prove guilt BRD, and they must do so with clear and competent evidence.