Conscience

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Mostly because its addressed to the heirarchy within the Church and is not under the heading of laity but under On the Heirarchical structure of the Church and in particular the Episcopate. As you pointed out to me before regarding another epistle I believe the heading makes all the difference. Secondly because the CCC does not reference LG anywhere in its explanation of moral conscienceness. Thus they did not I must assume consider this section of LG in any way pertinent to the issue of personal formation of conscience.

 

[catharina]

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. **

Do you imagine that you will be having a “give-and-take” exchange with Almighty God to present your own argumentations in support of your behaviors? That seems incomprehensible to me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

LOL…well if you continue to frame it incorrectly, your the one who is pursuing an absurd position. Care to try again?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

How can anyone think his “gut feeling” is superior to the inspired wisdom of the Church?

People who claim their conscience is superior are very close to “situational ethics.” And I have never heard of a case where someone applied “situational ethics” and did not decide that “in this particular situation” the most moral choice was the one that benefited himself the most.

We also see the Fallacy of False Delimma at work here – there are only two choices, abandon the Church’s teaching, or “follow the Church blindly.” What sophistry!!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

**Thanks, I’m sure glad your have the time to look all this up. I sure don’t. I stand by what I have said obviously. I do think that given what we know now about the historical critical analysis that it would be far better if the Church had not taken such a stand on homosexuality. It has caused enormous pain within the laity. Many of these sexual issues arise from long ago when there was a very distinct believe that the body was accursed and a thing to be reviled, ignored, and mistreated into “submission.” Such is not the position of the Church today, however these varied sexual issues are the result of that intitial thinking. **

I don’t mean to be uncharitable or to distort what you are saying, but It is pretty clear you think Catholics who follow the Church Magisterium are dangerous. You have said this on this thread, also in your blog (Dec 9). It’s hard for me to understand how someone could arrive at this conclusion and still want to be a Catholic.

**I think you do go out of you way to distort, as I had to correct you in three statements in a row. I have never said that following the Magisterium is dangerous. It’s but another distortion. That blog was on moral conscience. In it I referred to a particular type of Catholic which I defined only IN PART as being obsessively concerned with the Magisterium, not just in a normal way of knowing Church teaching on the big issues, but actually saying point blank…“I have no idea if the Church speaks to this issue (chewing gum in church for instance) but if it does, I adher to it” That kind of thing is to me most objectiionable. I went on to say that this type of Catholic, otherwise discribed with many other non-Magisterium examples was intent IMO on turning the Church backward, and that they were dangerous…not so much to the Church, but to the world at large. Fundamentalism is becoming a growing concern in many religions for very obvious reasons. That was my point.

I am of course saddened that you wish I would go away. That seems to be a general feeling I’m getting these days, that some folks would prefer a leaner meaner church of only their own kind. **

 

[Mousey]

Nope, I just didn’t see your point…

Since I misread your reply no wonder you don’t

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I know who you refer to. You are missing my point. It is not that A Catholic runs and is elected on a pro-life platform. I doubt seriously whether he went around saying that he would check with the Church before EVERY vote to determine if they had a positon which he would adopt. My point is that given the publicity of certain bishops claiming to do at a distance refusal of communion to Catholics who don’t follow the church, added with folks here who promote that Catholics are required to adher to Church teachings even as elected officials, creates a very bad situation in place. If the American electorate becomes convinced that any elected Catholic will ignore the the electorate and follow Rome in all matters Rome chooses to address, no one will vote for Catholics to be in public office, for obvious reasons. They essentially cannot take the oath of office. That is the dangerous road you would take us.

I’m not sure given the age of communication we are in why you thought it pertinent to tell me his state was next to mine…lol…that would hardly make it more likely I was aware of him. But it was cute

Yes, you may join Jayne is thinking I should leave you to your Church, but I am a firm believer in Catholic teaching as a whole, think She has theologically the most defensible position, and is due both my love and respect. I question some of her members from time to time and am unsure if they are correct. I do actually believe that the Spirit, in its own time, makes all right. We also are required to be aware and question. One of the things I find that has not been inculcated well in the average member’s mind, is that the Spirit of God is within them as well, and the Spirit can use and does use all of its resources to protect the Church. I cannot imagine that the Spirit would ever use me alone that way, but I can certainly see where it has used other singular people in the past to accomplish great things.

My questions are my questions, not meant to antagonize, but to open the discussion to new ways of looking at old issues. Obviously it upsets some folks mightily. Perhaps that is good, I don’t know, but I am sorry it strikes such fear in some. I guess I do fear that the charge made to fundamentalists that they have forsook God for a book as their idol, could also be asserted against Catholics, should we be caught in worshiping the Church more than God. Some see that as impossible and a horrible thing to say, but others might suggest that it is already here in small measure.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

To refer to conscience with “gut feeling” is to trivialize the concept. Perhaps you’ve missed that some people here have spent literally years studying, reading, praying and meditating attempting to properly form their conscience. To reduce it to a mere “gut feeling” is to denigrate such humble and honest efforts.

A gut feeling is no more than a feeling, an inkling that one feels somehow uncomfortable. If one feels that, one is duty bound to begin the process of full discernment of conscience on that topic. A rigorous and difficult process no doubt, but one each of us I believe is bound to undertake when such a situation arises.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To refer to conscience with “gut feeling” is to trivialize the concept. Perhaps you’ve missed that some people here have spent literally years studying, reading, praying and meditating attempting to properly form their conscience. To reduce it to a mere “gut feeling” is to denigrate such humble and honest efforts.

So tell me, how does a Catholic form a conscientious value in opposition to the Church’s teachings?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Do you imagine that you will be having a “give-and-take” exchange with Almighty God to present your own argumentations in support of your behaviors? That seems incomprehensible to me.

You totally confuse me. You quote from remarks about criminals and judges and appeals, and then make the above statement? What is the give and take? Why do you make such a statement at all? Wherein have I said, I’m expecting that with God? What statement is incomprehensible? If you are referring to the last sentence, please go back and see what it was in reference to! The poster asked if I thought exercising the right to remain silent would work against God, and I said no…geesh…

 

[Janet_S]

Mostly because its addressed to the heirarchy within the Church and is not under the heading of laity but under On the Heirarchical structure of the Church and in particular the Episcopate. As you pointed out to me before regarding another epistle I believe the heading makes all the difference. Secondly because the CCC does not reference LG anywhere in its explanation of moral conscienceness. Thus they did not I must assume consider this section of LG in any way pertinent to the issue of personal formation of conscience.

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. LG25

You read this quote and believe this means only bishops and priests are supposed to accept Magisterial teachings? Come on, you know better than that. This statement applies to **all **Catholics, to you and me.

It’s under the heading “ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE.”

That is not the same as “TO THE HIERARCHY.”

If the Church really did teach “primacy” or “freedom” of conscience, (which it doesn’t), that would directly contradict this statement from Lumen Gentium.

We Catholics really are supposed to accept all the Magisterial teachings according to LG25. No Catholic can dismiss any teaching with the excuse “primacy of conscience.” That is my point.

The faithful are expected to accept and adhere to all that the Magisterium teaches. That is the clear teaching of Vatican 2.

 

[Janet_S]

To refer to conscience with “gut feeling” is to trivialize the concept. Perhaps you’ve missed that some people here have spent literally years studying, reading, praying and meditating attempting to properly form their conscience. To reduce it to a mere “gut feeling” is to denigrate such humble and honest efforts.

A gut feeling is no more than a feeling, an inkling that one feels somehow uncomfortable. If one feels that, one is duty bound to begin the process of full discernment of conscience on that topic. A rigorous and difficult process no doubt, but one each of us I believe is bound to undertake when such a situation arises.

If people did this (read, prayed, studied) when they had difficulty with a Church teaching, that would be great. Unfortunately, this type of search doesn’t usually happen from what I’ve seen. Especially when a Catholic goes into a confessional and is told by a priest that his sin isn’t really a sin as long as his conscience doesn’t bother him. After hearing that type of pastoral advice, for most people, that’s the end of the search.

I hope that when Catholics struggle with Church teachings, they include at least a few Catholic sources in their search for truth, like encyclicals, The Catechism, Church Council documents, or other Vatican documents. There’s a lot out there especially with the internet. There’s no excuse anymore for not knowing the why’s behind Church teachings.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To refer to conscience with “gut feeling” is to trivialize the concept. Perhaps you’ve missed that some people here have spent literally years studying, reading, praying and meditating attempting to properly form their conscience. To reduce it to a mere “gut feeling” is to denigrate such humble and honest efforts.

A gut feeling is no more than a feeling, an inkling that one feels somehow uncomfortable. If one feels that, one is duty bound to begin the process of full discernment of conscience on that topic. A rigorous and difficult process no doubt, but one each of us I believe is bound to undertake when such a situation arises.

Objecting to the phrase ‘gut feeling’ is just a red herring. The point I was making is that no matter what you feel or discern or concluce, you can still humbly submit to the authority of the church and recognize that the church has the authority to teach on these matters. And that isn’t going against your conscience: it’s your conscience telling you to be humble and accept the authority of the church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Objecting to the phrase ‘gut feeling’ is just a red herring. The point I was making is that no matter what you feel or discern or concluce, you can still humbly submit to the authority of the church and recognize that the church has the authority to teach on these matters. And that isn’t going against your conscience: it’s your conscience telling you to be humble and accept the authority of the church.

What is the proper term for a personal disagreement with the Magisterium? I cannot find in this thread any definition of the process or faculty that produces a decision of conscience that differs from the Magisterium’s teaching.

If it isn’t a gut feeling, what is it?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What is the proper term for a personal disagreement with the Magisterium? I cannot find in this thread any definition of the process or faculty that produces a decision of conscience that differs from the Magisterium’s teaching.

If it isn’t a gut feeling, what is it?

I imagine that there isn’t one set process, and that it varies from person to person.

What I have to contribute is that, whatever process you use, making a rational decision to accept what the church teaches, even if it goes against what you would otherwise believe, does not mean you are going against your conscience.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You read this quote and believe this means only bishops and priests are supposed to accept Magisterial teachings? Come on, you know better than that. This statement applies to **all **Catholics, to you and me.

**I simply applied the same rules you applied to my offerings. the second argument is even more compelling I believe. I guess the CCC wasn’t aware that LG was to be used thusly. **

It’s under the heading “ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE.”

That is not the same as “TO THE HIERARCHY.”

If the Church really did teach “primacy” or “freedom” of conscience, (which it doesn’t), that would directly contradict this statement from Lumen Gentium.

**Look, I know what you believe. I find it impossible given what I’ve read and submitted to agree with you. It’s so obviously wrong in my opinion. What more is there to say? **

We Catholics really are supposed to accept all the Magisterial teachings according to LG25. No Catholic can dismiss any teaching with the excuse “primacy of conscience.” That is my point.

**I understand, its just that, well this seems to be a minority opinion you have within the Church. In fact, I’ve read elsewhere that it is a position noted for here on this forum particularly. It is not the opinion as I have been told by most Catholics, insofar as they have thought about it. I admit, I was so personally shocked that anyone would claim this that I went not only to my parish priest, but went online to our diocese where they have a Q and A, and got the same answer. I surely was strongly warned that indeed, this is not some kind of do what you think best, but a very serious and long process, and not to undertaken lightly or frivously. Bottom line, I’m still correct in the end. Now of course you may believe what you desire to based on what you see the material saying. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If people did this (read, prayed, studied) when they had difficulty with a Church teaching, that would be great. Unfortunately, this type of search doesn’t usually happen from what I’ve seen. Especially when a Catholic goes into a confessional and is told by a priest that his sin isn’t really a sin as long as his conscience doesn’t bother him. After hearing that type of pastoral advice, for most people, that’s the end of the search.

Well I think we get closer to the truth now. I would agree with you that it is not likely that most people who do as they should, and you may in fact be correct that some priests do soft pedal some teachings, but I would submit that these issues cannot be corrected via a distortion of Church teaching. (Now I know you don’t feel them distorted at all…my perception) Better, I would suggest that parishes invest some real time to doing seminar/group study on the issue of what it means to be in disagreement with the Church, what should be done, etc.

I hope that when Catholics struggle with Church teachings, they include at least a few Catholic sources in their search for truth, like encyclicals, The Catechism, Church Council documents, or other Vatican documents. There’s a lot out there especially with the internet. There’s no excuse anymore for not knowing the why’s behind Church teachings.

**The first source should be the Church itself which has a wealth of information and huge amounts of it now are available online. All the major documents for sure, and tons of letters and commissions and addresses. I would like to hope that every Catholic has a copy of the CCC at home, but such is readily available online. as are the Canons. Secondary sources would obviously depend on the specific issue–biology, psychology, geology, might be necessary sources in a given situation. Third would be anecdotal sources perhaps. Obviously one should seek to be as broad as possible. One of course need go no further than the first source if the problem is cleared up there. I would actually imagine that more often than not thats where it would end. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Objecting to the phrase ‘gut feeling’ is just a red herring. The point I was making is that no matter what you feel or discern or concluce, you can still humbly submit to the authority of the church and recognize that the church has the authority to teach on these matters. And that isn’t going against your conscience: it’s your conscience telling you to be humble and accept the authority of the church.

You were in fact trying to trivialize what I believed by using the phrase “gut feeling” and suggesting I was so light headed that I might have confused that with a fully formed conscience. You got your answer. I do not agree with you assessment of the pertinent documents.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You were in fact trying to trivialize what I believed by using the phrase “gut feeling” and suggesting I was so light headed that I might have confused that with a fully formed conscience. You got your answer. I do not agree with you assessment of the pertinent documents.

When you’re through with your mind-reading act, would you predict for the rest of us which stocks are going double in value in the coming year?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You were in fact trying to trivialize what I believed by using the phrase “gut feeling” and suggesting I was so light headed that I might have confused that with a fully formed conscience. You got your answer. I do not agree with you assessment of the pertinent documents.

You dodged the question again, and this time accused me of insulting your intelligence.

You got the answer from your priest, and of course he’s right, that everyone has to follow their conscience. However if your conscience tells you not to agree with the magesterium, you still have to follow it, but if the positions it tells you to take are heretical, then you are no longer catholic.

And yes, it is our duty as catholics, to follow our conscience, even if that means changing religion.