Discerning truth, up to the individual?

[littlechicken]

When I converted to Catholicism, one of the things I found very interesting was the teaching of “a properly formed conscience”. The way I grew up, the idea was novel to me. My life had been based on, if something *feels *right or wrong, then that is what you based your decisions on. For those who’ve been life long Catholics, the idea may be foreign to them, but I know many who live their lives just that way.
My problem is, when I started running into doctrine that seemed to conflict.
A note in the bulletin of a parish I visited read; “if you are a Catholic, you know what a sin is or is not”.
But then, if one talks to one priest, and he gives different counsel than what another priest does, how does one discern on the rules of “a properly formed conscience”?
For instance, most would say if you’ve committed a mortal sin and forgot to mention it in Reconciliation, you absolutely must mention it the next time you go to Reconciliation, or, you must even go back to Reconciliation solely to confess that one sin. But the priest you made your original confession to has forbade you to confess in future any sins you have forgotten, saying you have been forgiven up to that point. What does one do then? I truly believe that a priest, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance is performing his duty. And yet, other’s would say he is not.
Another example is the death penalty. Some can present arguments straight from Cannon Law that justify it, even today, while others can present equally compelling arguments against the practice. (Again, straight from Canon Law).
So how does one determine on the doctrine of a “properly formed conscience”?

Some would say, when it comes right down to it, to abide by The Commandments.
Thou shall not kill.
Okay, so a woman in a wheelchair comes upon a scene where a person is brutally attacking a child. The woman is unable to get out of her wheelchair to stop the assault, and the child is going to be killed if the woman does nothing. The woman has a gun, she draws it, takes aim, and fires at the attacker, killing the person.
She just broke the commandment of not killing according to strict adherence to the law.

So how does one determine?
I don’t want to do the wrong things in life. I really want to know.
When 2 people argue from totally opposing viewpoints, but can offer equally compelling evidence for their individual stances, well, the waters get a little murky in the “properly formed conscience” arena.

Thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut.
May we all remember to be grateful today.
Happy Thanksgiving,
littlechicken

 

[JM3]

First, I would suggest that you get a spiritual director

Second, If you do not have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, you should get one.

Here is one online: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Third, on ‘Thou shall not kill’. It is the intention, not the act itself, that matters.

CCC
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not."65

Fourth, the death penalty.

CCC
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Fifth, on conscience

CCC
III. To Choose in Accord With Conscience

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58

Sixth, on sin

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

Seventh, pray.

 

[littlechicken]

One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

What is evil? In the case where a person must decide not that they are going to take a life, but rather they are left with the unenviable decision of the manner of the person’s death.

A spiritual director would be nice, but in today’s world, how does one discern they are being directed ‘righteously’ when even priests and other religious have gone astray?
Not to mention, I am in one of those “perfect storms” where having a spiritual director isn’t a possibility. I won’t go into detail on here, but suffice to say, I am very isolated. (hopefully that will not always be the case)

Thank you for your answer, at least you bothered to.
I sincerely did come to this site in an effort to have a properly formed conscience, and find myself more confused than ever.

Perhaps sometimes we doom ourselves. I must wonder if that is what has happened in my case. That with my past, I am simply beyond hope.

Have a good day.

 

[JM3]

What is evil? In the case where a person must decide not that they are going to take a life, but rather they are left with the unenviable decision of the manner of the person’s death.

Perhaps sometimes we doom ourselves. I must wonder if that is what has happened in my case. That with my past, I am simply beyond hope.

Have a good day.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

No one is beyond hope.

Read the Catechism. Pray the Divine Mercy chaplet. Prayer is your lifeline. When doubts come, pray and say “Jesus, I trust in you”. It is for you that Jesus died on the cross Embrace this gift and do not let it go.

You are in my prayers.

 

[edwest2]

When I converted to Catholicism, one of the things I found very interesting was the teaching of “a properly formed conscience”. The way I grew up, the idea was novel to me. My life had been based on, if something *feels *right or wrong, then that is what you based your decisions on. For those who’ve been life long Catholics, the idea may be foreign to them, but I know many who live their lives just that way.
My problem is, when I started running into doctrine that seemed to conflict.
A note in the bulletin of a parish I visited read; “if you are a Catholic, you know what a sin is or is not”.
But then, if one talks to one priest, and he gives different counsel than what another priest does, how does one discern on the rules of “a properly formed conscience”?
For instance, most would say if you’ve committed a mortal sin and forgot to mention it in Reconciliation, you absolutely must mention it the next time you go to Reconciliation, or, you must even go back to Reconciliation solely to confess that one sin. But the priest you made your original confession to has forbade you to confess in future any sins you have forgotten, saying you have been forgiven up to that point. What does one do then? I truly believe that a priest, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance is performing his duty. And yet, other’s would say he is not.
Another example is the death penalty. Some can present arguments straight from Cannon Law that justify it, even today, while others can present equally compelling arguments against the practice. (Again, straight from Canon Law).
So how does one determine on the doctrine of a “properly formed conscience”?

Some would say, when it comes right down to it, to abide by The Commandments.
Thou shall not kill.
Okay, so a woman in a wheelchair comes upon a scene where a person is brutally attacking a child. The woman is unable to get out of her wheelchair to stop the assault, and the child is going to be killed if the woman does nothing. The woman has a gun, she draws it, takes aim, and fires at the attacker, killing the person.
She just broke the commandment of not killing according to strict adherence to the law.

So how does one determine?
I don’t want to do the wrong things in life. I really want to know.
When 2 people argue from totally opposing viewpoints, but can offer equally compelling evidence for their individual stances, well, the waters get a little murky in the “properly formed conscience” arena.

Thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut.
May we all remember to be grateful today.
Happy Thanksgiving,
littlechicken

Hi,

I recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No, you can’t read it is one sitting. I also recommend the Bible, at least one page a day.

Opinions are not facts. And most of us do not live lives that require extraordinary decisions. The woman in the wheelchair idea is interesting but most of us will never face such a situation in out lifetimes. Most of us, though some may suffer from some disability, and some greater than others, do not find ourselves in extraordinary situations. Most of go to work, come home, eat dinner, spend time with friends and/or family and go to bed. That’s it.

So, there is a difference between killing and self-defense, including defending another person when there is no one else around.

I think your best approach is to understand what the Church teaches especially as it applies to your life. Most of the problems today involve sexual immorality, modesty and profanity.

So you need to examine what you’re doing and want to do, and find out how that lines up with Church teaching. For too many, it’s about the wrong use of human sexuality.

1. Do I watch porn?
2. Do I have sex with whoever?
3. Do I think abortion is OK?
4. Do I think artificial contraception is OK?
5. Do I think masturbation is OK?
6. Can I picture myself getting married for life to one person and having kids?
7. Do I think divorce is OK?

I suspect that at least part of your thinking was shaped by two things. The Hippie saying, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

And one other part of the Hippie lifestyle. “Do what you feel, man. I mean, your thing may not be my thing, but it’s all cool.”

We should be Catholics by choice. God will not force you to love Him or keep His commandments. I guarantee a priest will not be pounding on your door Monday if you missed Mass on Sunday.

Opinions are not facts. Sure, we need to understand the other person’s point of view but there is no such thing as two right answers. One opinion has to be wrong.

Take away our gadgets and we’re the same people from Biblical times. We can choose to lie, cheat, steal, or do whatever we think is right. As Catholics, and being on the internet, we can look for answers and find them. Just make sure that whatever answer you get lines up with the Bible, the Catechism and Church teaching.

About the death penalty.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Richard320]

As others have said, before you start defining things, know what the Church teaches. If you don’t know, there is no way your conscience can be properly formed. Several years ago, for Lent, I read the Catechism cover-to-cover. It worked out to about 15 pages/day. Be forewarned: the first third or so is pretty dry reading. The section on prayer is excellent.

That said, now you get to some tough choices, because there is some room for personal discretion. Missing Mass:

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

What’s serious? How ill? Do flu-like symptoms count? What if it’s the Bottle Flu? You know, deep down inside, if it’s illness or laziness.

Or the Friday Penance? Suppose you choose an alternative to abstaining from meat? Is it really equivalent? What about the exemption from fasting if you are doing hard physical labor? How hard does it have to be? Once again, you have to decide. You’ll know. No one can make you feel guilty if you’re not.

There are certain subjects that have no room for individual discernment. Like women’s ordination. Pope John Paul II was pretty strightforward about that:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[littlechicken]

As others have said, before you start defining things, know what the Church teaches. If you don’t know, there is no way your conscience can be properly formed. Several years ago, for Lent, I read the Catechism cover-to-cover. It worked out to about 15 pages/day. Be forewarned: the first third or so is pretty dry reading. The section on prayer is excellent.

That said, now you get to some tough choices, because there is some room for personal discretion. Missing Mass: What’s serious? How ill? Do flu-like symptoms count? What if it’s the Bottle Flu? You know, deep down inside, if it’s illness or laziness.

Or the Friday Penance? Suppose you choose an alternative to abstaining from meat? Is it really equivalent? What about the exemption from fasting if you are doing hard physical labor? How hard does it have to be? Once again, you have to decide. You’ll know. No one can make you feel guilty if you’re not.

There are certain subjects that have no room for individual discernment. Like women’s ordination. Pope John Paul II was pretty strightforward about that:

You’re kind of scary with that missing Mass analogy, it is one of the things I often wonder about, could I have made it if I had really pushed myself? The last time I did, I made a bit of a spectacle out of myself. (tremors, unsteady gait, almost fell as I was going back to my seat)
Sigh, No, I really don’t know the answer to that one, but it is very peculiar that you bring it up.


TY everyone for the answers and prayers. It is what I want, not to be coddled, but to be told the truth.
I guess I saw this forum as kind of a ‘spiritual director’ for me in my situation.
I will posit one more question on here, then, until I am stronger in the faith, I will stay away, as it is one of my gravest concerns that I may mislead another.
May God bless each of you.

 

[Newbie2]

We all make what is estimated to be a couple thousand decisions every day; some of them are amoral, meaning that they have no moral component at all and some of them have a moral component.

An example of the former would be what do I choose to eat for lunch, hamburger or cheeseburger? Now, of course, it is possible to overanalyze such choices: Where do I buy the hamburger? Does the company support abortion, etc?, Were the cattle slaughtered in a humane manner, etc. But let’s assume one does not go overboard on this.

Really, then, there are fewer decisions that we make during the day that have a moral component, and some decisions have more moral “gravitas” than others. How often do we run into a situation where we have a serious moral choice to make, such as whether or not to abort the baby that was created through an adultrous act?

Here’s a thought (make this a long-term project); formation of conscience is a long-term, lifelong process, not like going to college where one finishes their studies and is done.

Reading the catechism and Scripture are fine, but cover-to-cover reading isn’t for everyone.

Here’s a suggestion: Make a list of 5 actions that you have questions about, in a moral sense, i.e. is it alright to kill in self defense and if so, under what sort of circumstances. Start with “biggies”; killing, abortion, the really serious kind of stuff. Then research them. Look at the catechism first; check the footnotes and read those references as well. Ask questions here on the CAF; ask for references; there’s lots of “Catholically” informed people here.

When you’re satisfied that you have a knowledge of what and why the Church teaches these things, make another list of 5. Make it a hobby.

Not sure how old you are, but even if you do this for 30 years, you will still not have the pat answers or resolve conflicts that even devoted, learned theologians debate. That’s the bad news; there are not always clear answers for all those “grey area” questions.

And that precisely is where your conscience comes in. Without commiting yourself to being a theologian, you’ve done what is reasonable to form your conscience. Time then to pray, contemplate, and trust your conscience.

BTW, prayer is an essential part of conscience forming. There will always be matters that you may struggle with, and that’s OK. Very important, and bears repeating: It is OK to struggle with the moral teachings of the Church.

It is a far different thing to say “I don’t agree with the Church on this or that” and “I don’t understand why the Church teaches this or that, so please, Lord, help me to understand”.

 

[Viki63]

Dear Littlechicken,
Congratulations on being a convert! I too converted some 16 or so years ago, and am still learning. As other posters have mentioned, it’s a lifelong process. And on into eternity too, I suspect.
I hope you won’t stop coming to the forums, they are full of good information (and some uninformed info too)
Reading the Catechism is a good suggestion, I’m still reading it in bits and pieces. Here’s a good website I like too: www.catholicexchange.com.
I would also suggest reading the articles here, which should clarify some points. My understanding about confession is that if you forget to confess something, the confession still covers all sins up to that point, but it’s a good idea to mention any mortal sin you may have forgotten. Although keep in mind, if you didn’t realize at the time that what you were doing was grave and sinful, it’s probably not a mortal sin, since mortal sin requires full knowledge.
God bless.

 

[fred_conty]

Littlechicken,
If I may make a little suggestion. Only be concerning about sins you might commit.
Is murder one of them? If not, just think of something else.

We are not obliged to form our conscience on everything possible. Just what you need.
If not needed then onward and upward.

Saves lots of grief.

As far a capital sins that were forgotten to be told in the last confession,
there is no time parameter on telling them. Just tell them whenever you go to your next confession. That sin is already forgiven, it is just that the church requires them to be told in the next confession.

Be at peace.

 

[Julia_Mae]

When I converted to Catholicism, one of the things I found very interesting was the teaching of “a properly formed conscience”. The way I grew up, the idea was novel to me. My life had been based on, if something *feels *right or wrong, then that is what you based your decisions on. For those who’ve been life long Catholics, the idea may be foreign to them, but I know many who live their lives just that way.
My problem is, when I started running into doctrine that seemed to conflict.

First, the only person who is going to answer for your choices is you. Not your priest. Not the writers of the Catechism. No one else. So your past way of doing things by feel, is also part of the present way of making decisions.

Let’s take this example:

Some would say, when it comes right down to it, to abide by The Commandments.
Thou shall not kill.
Okay, so a woman in a wheelchair comes upon a scene where a person is brutally attacking a child. The woman is unable to get out of her wheelchair to stop the assault, and the child is going to be killed if the woman does nothing. The woman has a gun, she draws it, takes aim, and fires at the attacker, killing the person.
She just broke the commandment of not killing according to strict adherence to the law.

First, it wasn’t written in English and the Hebrew word for Kill has connotations that suggest murder rather than any possible taking of life. The death penalty is cold-blooded killing by government fiat. Acting in self-defense, or possibly the defense of another, is not the same action. Intent matters. The woman intends to stop the harm being done to the child. She has no idea when he fires if the attacker will be hit, grazed, wounded or killed.

But the problem with your post, IMO, is you are positing questions you are likely to never face, except for the one about confessing the extra sin. Obedience is highly valued by Jesus, according to Saint Faustina and Saint Francis. I’d go with obeying the priest.

As for the rest, an informed conscience is the feeling combined with taking the time to become educated about Church teaching.

You don’t have to decide if capital punishment is right unless you are called to vote on it as you are not an executioner. What you decide every day is just as important to God, however. You can’t just follow books and then say, “Well, someone else said so.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When I converted to Catholicism, one of the things I found very interesting was the teaching of “a properly formed conscience”. The way I grew up, the idea was novel to me. My life had been based on, if something *feels *right or wrong, then that is what you based your decisions on. For those who’ve been life long Catholics, the idea may be foreign to them, but I know many who live their lives just that way.
My problem is, when I started running into doctrine that seemed to conflict.
A note in the bulletin of a parish I visited read; “if you are a Catholic, you know what a sin is or is not”.
But then, if one talks to one priest, and he gives different counsel than what another priest does, how does one discern on the rules of “a properly formed conscience”?
For instance, most would say if you’ve committed a mortal sin and forgot to mention it in Reconciliation, you absolutely must mention it the next time you go to Reconciliation, or, you must even go back to Reconciliation solely to confess that one sin. But the priest you made your original confession to has forbade you to confess in future any sins you have forgotten, saying you have been forgiven up to that point. What does one do then? I truly believe that a priest, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance is performing his duty. And yet, other’s would say he is not.
Another example is the death penalty. Some can present arguments straight from Cannon Law that justify it, even today, while others can present equally compelling arguments against the practice. (Again, straight from Canon Law).
So how does one determine on the doctrine of a “properly formed conscience”?

Some would say, when it comes right down to it, to abide by The Commandments.
Thou shall not kill.
Okay, so a woman in a wheelchair comes upon a scene where a person is brutally attacking a child. The woman is unable to get out of her wheelchair to stop the assault, and the child is going to be killed if the woman does nothing. The woman has a gun, she draws it, takes aim, and fires at the attacker, killing the person.
She just broke the commandment of not killing according to strict adherence to the law.

So how does one determine?
I don’t want to do the wrong things in life. I really want to know.
When 2 people argue from totally opposing viewpoints, but can offer equally compelling evidence for their individual stances, well, the waters get a little murky in the “properly formed conscience” arena.

Thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut.
May we all remember to be grateful today.
Happy Thanksgiving,
littlechicken

Start with the sections in the Catechism dealing with Reconcilliation and the Commandments. Pay close attention to what constitutes a serious sin : grave matter, full knowledge of this at the time the act was committed, full consent of the will. If any of these is absent there is no sin. If you forget to mention a mortal sin in confession, it is forgiven, but tell it in your next confession. I think your first priest may have misunderstood you. You can’t learn everything at once.

There are good reasons for missing the Sunday obligation. God expects you to be honest, he doesn’t expect you to go if you are sick or if it would endanger your safety by driving over really dangerous roads in winter or through a blinding snow storm, etc. These things are really up to your own discression, no hard and fast rules. I have missed a few times for those very reasons - flu, dangerous roads.