Do you agree with Aquinas?

[Charlemagne_III]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[Hatikvah]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

1 Timothy 3:9 refers to holding one’s faith with a “clear conscience.” It might be implied, therefore, that the conscience can be “dirtied.” Hebrews 10:22 refers to having our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.”

So, yes, the conscience can be made impure or evil somehow (through sin?). I think I agree with St. Thomas. In Romans 2:14-15, St. Paul says that “[the gentiles] show that what the law requires is written on their hearts to which their own conscience also bears witness.”

If one’s heart has morality written on it deep down, then their conscience is intended to lead them there. So, as Aquinas says, not following one’s conscience will lead to sin.

Semantics: will it “always” lead to sin for each person? As for this, I don’t want to knit-pick at Aquinas’ words; I will not speculate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, yes, the conscience can be made impure or evil somehow (through sin?)."

Could you give an example of this?

 

[Hatikvah]

Could you give an example of this?

Someone can make themselves impure through sin (an example I might use is that when you are in a state of mortal sin, you are “impure,” and purity might be a state of grace). More or less, we can only say that one’s conscience can be either defiled or undefiled:

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. (Titus 1:15)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15)

Interesting quote.

I’ve heard some atheists argue that they are sincerely following their conscience when they refuse to believe. So is atheism a protected moral state immune to guilt because it is sincere?

 

[e_c]

To disobey your conscience is to do what you think is wrong. Is it really so hard to see the disorder in that? We think that it is right - viz., that the will of God is - to do this or that. But then we don’t. So we try to choose something other than the will of God, and we actually dismiss it as less important than our own will.

This is spoken of very clearly in the Catechism.

 

[Hatikvah]

I’ve heard some atheists argue that they are sincerely following their conscience when they refuse to believe. So is atheism a protected moral state immune to guilt because it is sincere?

A common quote addressing arguments like this goes:

For [God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

I cannot speak for all atheists, but this may simply mean that many atheists are in denial or are trying to justify their disbelief. On the contrary, perhaps, this quote from the Epistle to Titus would be to say that atheists do have inherent guilt because of their consciences. Guilt also helps determine, even if retroactively, right from wrong.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

To disobey your conscience is to do what you think is wrong.

This.

If you think you are sinning, then you are: not in the act itself, but by your willingness to do that which is wrong. And the degree of gravity carries over, too.

So, for example, if I think it’s a mortal sin to wear a red shirt, then for you, wearing a red shirt is a mortal sin, until you understand that it’s not a mortal sin. The wearing of the shirt is not made wrong, but your willingness to commit a mortal sin is a mortal sin.

I think that’s what Aquinas means. Not that morally indifferent acts are made evil in themselves, but that we add an evil act (willingness to do evil) to the morally indifferent act (wearing the red shirt).

 

[Hatikvah]

I think that’s what Aquinas means. Not that morally indifferent acts are made evil in themselves, but that we add an evil act (willingness to do evil) to the morally indifferent act (wearing the red shirt).

I like both the explanation and the example.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, for example, if I think it’s a mortal sin to wear a red shirt, then for you, wearing a red shirt is a mortal sin, until you understand that it’s not a mortal sin. The wearing of the shirt is not made wrong, but your willingness to commit a mortal sin is a mortal sin.

Let’s look at that again.

This seems to make moral evil relative. Isn’t evil an objective thing, rather than something relative to time or circumstance?

I understand that willingness to commit evil is required to do evil, but is the willingness actually the sin, or is it the fulfillment of the willingness that is the sin?

Eve was willing to eat the forbidden fruit, but was she not innocent until she actually ate it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Another question:

Without God, what is or can be or must be the authority of conscience?

Personal whim?

Parental authority?

Society’s mandates and laws?

How objective are any of these without Divine Command as their foundation?

 

[wkj_123]

What about people suffering from scrupulosity? How does that play in? Someone who feels like so many things are sins that it makes daily life difficult.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Conscience involves more than merely talking to oneself; it is part of the dialogue between the person and God. This being the case, using the example of Abraham, we can understand that one must follow one’s conscience. I believe a rabbinic story has Abraham fasting for forty days and nights on the way to Mount Horeb*. Similarly, we struggle within our relationship with God, to find the truth in the midst of self-deception, to make Him primary in our lives, despite what the world values. Conscience must be educated through an understanding of revealed truth, guided by the Holy Spirit in prayer, reinforced through participation in the mass and sacraments, and by the completion of good works. Our relationship with God, our journey on the Way, our becoming more Christ-like and more loving, is a work in progress.

*Abraham and Issac understood that justice required a sacrifice if humanity was to be saved. They were prepared to carry out that mission and we find Isaac carrying the wood on his shoulders up the mount, prefiguring the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the sacrificial lamb provided by God to redeem humanity

 

[Aloysium]

What about people suffering from scrupulosity? How does that play in? Someone who feels like so many things are sins that it makes daily life difficult.

It is a form of mental illness. The right psychiatrist and medication can relieve a lot of that suffering.

 

[Bradski]

To disobey your conscience is to do what you think is wrong. Is it really so hard to see the disorder in that? We think that it is right - viz., that the will of God is - to do this or that. But then we don’t. So we try to choose something other than the will of God, and we actually dismiss it as less important than our own will.

I think that e_c has nailed it. Our conscience doesn’t tell us what to do or what not to do. It simply reminds us that we have already made that choice but are not complying with it.

I’ve heard some atheists argue that they are sincerely following their conscience when they refuse to believe.

See above.

So is atheism a protected moral state immune to guilt because it is sincere?

I’m not sure about describing it as a protected moral state, but there is no guilt as it is sincere.

I cannot speak for all atheists…

I’m not sure that you can speak for any.

 

[Bradski]

Another question:

Without God, what is or can be or must be the authority of conscience?

Even with God, there is only one person who can decide if something is right or wrong as it applies to you.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

No, St Thomas Aquinas is not the end all be all of theology. He makes an excellent point here but it’s not quite complete in the small quote you gave. His writing is so vast perhaps he expands on it elsewhere or within the context of the quote you gave.

If a person is unsure if a situation is right or wrong, and they try to get worthy advise but can’t get a straight answer about it, and/or don’t have the capacity to discern, yet still do what they think* may* be wrong but are not sure about. Conscience is not always clear and discernable. If it turns out that decision was morally upstanding, how on earth is that a sin?

 

[Cheiron]

…]

I cannot speak for all atheists, but this may simply mean that many atheists are in denial or are trying to justify their disbelief. …]

I’ve read that before, on multiple websites and blogs, and I think atheists deserve the courtesy of being taken at their word. I try to extend the same courtesy to Christians. If Christians think that atheists secretly do believe and actually are rebelling against God, then I doubt a fruitful conversation between the religious and the non-religious is possible.

 

[animalis]

Pope Benedict XVI brings up the statement on conscience in one of his books, and if I recall correctly he affirmed it the validity in it.

Moreover, Aquinas is not flawless in his explanation of the doctrine in general, but it ought to be noted for the ignorant:

Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis (1970), n. 86: “…]Uphold St Thomas Aquinas as one of the highest teachers of the Church”.

Pope John XXII, speaking about St. Thomas, said before his canonization that “his life was saintly and his doctrine could only be miraculous … because he enlightened the church more than all the other doctors. By the use of his works a man could profit more in one year than if he studies the doctrine of others for his whole life.”

See this for numerous other statements by Pontiffs
thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/popes-st-thomas

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure about describing it as a protected moral state, but there is no guilt as it is sincere.

You were speaking of atheism there.

Does this mean that anything done sincerely is righteous because it is sincere?

That is, can we sincerely deceive ourselves, and be righteous about that?