Do you agree with Aquinas?

[1Lord1Faith]

Indeed… a foundation which has not changed in this regard.

You taking pot shots at a behemoth (whom you don’t even seem to know basic biographical details of). Do really you think Thomas didn’t treat of ignorance diminishing culpability? He did! But this is not about that. It is about the conscience… and where the conscience goes, we must go too.

Yes, fine - Galatians is mainly addressed to the pagan converts.

However, 5:3 is pretty clear… If you undergo circumcision, you are bound to follow the whole law.

It seems Paul is of the opinion that one ought to be taking his conversion seriously enough to understand what he is getting himself into… That if you are going to become a Christian, you are bound to know what that does and does not entail.

What is the problem with comparing God to a civil judge? It is an illustration to show a relationship by allegory… A man who fails to uphold a civil law clearly available to all to learn may justly be put away by a judge. How much more so with the natural law (Romans 1!!!), which is written on our hearts, and revealed law, which is available through the Church?

Back to the OP question.

“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?

I will never agree with this statement when the word always is in it. Thomas describes conscience as being the natural law given to everyone by God plus stuff we know. With ignorance being a factor, how is statement on conscience able to hold water?

St. Paul is not telling the pagan converts in Gal to keep going with Mosaic Law. Paul was being cheeky, saying, if your going to circumcise yourself in hopes of pleasing God then your Jewish, not Christian, but you are Christian, so stop it.
I’m circumcised, do I have to follow Mosaic Law?

Jesus tells of a relationship between God and man in the ‘prodigal son’. Father and son, not judge and accused.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That does not seem to square with experience at all.

Because conscience does not lie. That’s why it does not let go and reveals itself in our unhappiness when we persist in sin.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Whether right or wrong in conscience, when you disobey it, your sin is that you are saying, like Satan, “I will not serve you, God” (because mistaken or not, the soul knows that conscience is a voice created by God).

If you obey your conscience, and it is false, you are not a disobedient person to God, yet still ignorant of what is the true law (and hopefully someone informs you).

If your ignorance is through laziness in learning the truth or listening for it, then your sin is your act and your laziness/sloth, but it is not an outright rebellion against God.

Logic and reality do not back this up. It’s not that simple. The CCC is full of caveats about who has knowledge of what. If our conscience was anywhere near to being easily discernible and clear there would be no need for Jesus, the Church, Thomas etc…

Absolute words like always (as in the OP) should be used with caution when condemning others.

 

[e_c]

Logic and reality do not back this up. It’s not that simple. The CCC is full of caveats about who has knowledge of what. If our conscience was anywhere near to being easily discernible and clear there would be no need for Jesus, the Church, Thomas etc…

Little of what you said makes sense.

If someone’s conscience dictates that he ought to do x, but he does not do x, or that he ought not do y, but he does y, then he has violated his conscience. It is a precept that one must always obey his conscience, because the conscience is what convicts us of what the will of God is.

Conscience is not “a feeling” or a mere opinion (which deals with the probable) that is overcome by intuition or counsel. It is a belief. When you do what you believe is wrong, you are trying to offend God. Trying to offend God is offensive to God. It means that you do not want to please Him.

It is a very simple matter and is ultimately self-evident once you understand what the conscience is and is not.

 

[e_c]

Because conscience does not lie. That’s why it does not let go and reveals itself in our unhappiness when we persist in sin.

Except the reality is that we are often unsure of whether or not something was a sin. You have seen this on CAF a million times. “Did I sin when I did x?”

And plenty of people are so dead to the natural law that their consciences are malformed even in the most basic moral truths. So when they sin, they don’t feel the slightest bit of compunction, but on the contrary, often feel good about what they did and would be glad to do it again… or even might think that it is a duty to do what they did! Have you heard of Planned Parenthood?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Except the reality is that we are often unsure of whether or not something was a sin. You have seen this on CAF a million times. “Did I sin when I did x?”

I’m not buying this. We are never unsure of whether something is a sin. God does not leave us in the dark or mistaken about sin.

We have the Church and the commandments, not to teach us about sin, but to remind us of what God has given us as innate knowledge of sin. So as to give us no excuse to claim we were ignorant, but especially to give us the means by which to combat sin in the world; for there are many who have given in to sin and who, as convicted disciples of Satan, try to persuade us that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right.

Think, for example, of the atheist, in whom God has planted the knowledge of God, but who twists this knowledge into total defiance under the guise of following his conscience that he must be more loyal to truth than to God. As if God and truth are not one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Our conscience is of two commands: what to do, what not to do. Both commands are of equal weight, and we are obliged to follow both commands. The Command of Moses harkens to what we ought not to do. The command of Christ harkens to what we ought to do. But again, we are not left in the dark about these commands, and lest we seek to hide ourselves in the dark, Christ has shone his light upon us all revealing knowledge of the command to do good and avoid evil, the natural law which is universal.

 

[e_c]

I’m not buying this. We are never unsure of whether something is a sin. God does not leave us in the dark or mistaken about sin.

We have the Church and the commandments, not to teach us about sin, but to remind us of what God has given us as innate knowledge of sin. So as to give us no excuse to claim we were ignorant, but especially to give us the means by which to combat sin in the world; for there are many who have given in to sin and who, as convicted disciples of Satan, try to persuade us that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right.

Think, for example, of the atheist, in whom God has planted the knowledge of God, but who twists this knowledge into total defiance under the guise of following his conscience that he must be more loyal to truth than to God. As if God and truth are not one.

Our conscience is of two commands: what to do, what not to do. Both commands are of equal weight, and we are obliged to follow both commands. The Command of Moses harkens to what we ought not to do. The command of Christ harkens to what we ought to do. But again, we are not left in the dark about these commands, and lest we seek to hide ourselves in the dark, Christ has shone his light upon us all revealing knowledge of the command to do good and avoid evil, the natural law which is universal.

For one, a conscience can be malformed. Hopefully you are not debating this. A malformed conscience could be unsure where it ought to be sure, as in, it holds no firm conviction one way or another. After an act, one may try to consult his conscience, but to no avail. Our conscience is not God - it is fallible and flawed.

Second, even a well formed conscience may be perplexed in some cases which require intense scrutiny and more knowledge than what the average person is obliged to have. Take your favorite dilemma. “I saved my father from the fire instead of the one doctor in the world who held the knowledge to cure cancer. Did I sin?”

Third, just take a quick look at the reality of scrupulosity.

How on Earth can you say that people are never unsure of whether or not they sinned?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For one, a conscience can be malformed. Hopefully you are not debating this. A malformed conscience could be unsure where it ought to be sure, as in, it holds no firm conviction one way or another. After an act, one may try to consult his conscience, but to no avail. Our conscience is not God - it is fallible and flawed.

Second, even a well formed conscience may be perplexed in some cases which require intense scrutiny and more knowledge than what the average person is obliged to have. Take your favorite dilemma. “I saved my father from the fire instead of the one doctor in the world who held the knowledge to cure cancer. Did I sin?”

Third, just take a quick look at the reality of scrupulosity.

How on Earth can you say that people are never unsure of whether or not they sinned?

I never said people cannot be confused about whether they have sinned or about to sin. The devil is good at kicking up smokescreens to confuse us about right and wrong. People are always willing to treat us as idiots and get us to doubt our own sanity, as when they argue for same-sex marriage, when it is they who are insane. When that happens, we can always revert to prayer and Church teachings to dispel the smoke.

The example you offer about the father and the doctor is puerile. You save both, or you save the one you can save, or you save neither if you have to run for your life. You are making a silly argument here. Let’s get real.

 

[e_c]

I never said people cannot be confused about whether they have sinned or about to sin. The devil is good at kicking up smokescreens to confuse us about right and wrong. People are always willing to treat us as idiots and get us to doubt our own sanity, as when they argue for same-sex marriage, when it is they who are insane. When that happens, we can always revert to prayer and Church teachings to dispel the smoke.

The example you offer about the father and the doctor is puerile. You save both, or you save the one you can save, or you save neither if you have to run for your life. You are making a silly argument here. Let’s get real.

But dilemmas about fat men and trolleys are not “puerile”? It is a hypothetical meant to examine principles. I just picked the first one that came to mind.

You certainly did say people cannot be confused about whether they have sinned, at least twice, and you explicitly linked it to the moral agent’s conscience as a convicting principle… but you conflate the conscience with God and His Commandments. They are different.

We always know when we have sinned.

Conscience troubles us and will not let go no matter how hard we try to deceive ourselves.

I’m not buying this. We are never unsure of whether something is a sin. God does not leave us in the dark or mistaken about sin.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Little of what you said makes sense.

If someone’s conscience dictates that he ought to do x, but he does not do x, or that he ought not do y, but he does y, then he has violated his conscience. It is a precept that one must always obey his conscience, because the conscience is what convicts us of what the will of God is.

Conscience is not “a feeling” or a mere opinion (which deals with the probable) that is overcome by intuition or counsel. It is a belief. When you do what you believe is wrong, you are trying to offend God. Trying to offend God is offensive to God. It means that you do not want to please Him.

It is a very simple matter and is ultimately self-evident once you understand what the conscience is and is not.

It made sense to me.

The CCC says conscience is the inner voice, within whose heart the inner law of God is inscribed.

Separating the conscience out from everything else is difficult in many circumstances, even when circumstances involve “intrinsic evil”. This is not because of a warped conscience. It’s because of our nature, concupiscence, free will, temperament etc… Thomas’ arguments do not account for the fact that conscience never works on it’s own; it’s never isolated from the rest of what comprises human nature, therefore cannot ever be the sole author of a decision.

Moreover, how could the “inner voice from God written on our hearts” ever be considered to be false unless it is mixed with erroneous precepts. If it is then mixed with erroneous precepts, it’s not absolutely our conscience. And not therefore binding.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You certainly did say people cannot be confused about whether they have sinned, at least twice, and you explicitly linked it to the moral agent’s conscience as a convicting principle… but you conflate the conscience with God and His Commandments. They are different.

They are not different, since conscience comes from God through the natural law planted in our hearts, and the Commandments also come from God.

Conscience left to itself is always right. But it can be perverted beyond recognition.

That is why even when people persuade themselves that their sins are justified they still pay a heavy psychological price for defying their God given conscience and giving in to the devil-induced distortion of conscience.

Think of all the Catholics who are O.k. with same-sex marriage and abortion.

The devil has their conscience by the throat. That doesn’t mean, however, that deep down they don’t know they have deserted God for the devil.

 

[inocente]

Tongue in cheek

Strange reading, Paul isn’t on twitter. He is far from his flock, trying to overcome false teachers “that they who attach so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create commotion among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated!” (Meyer). Paul’s “you have fallen away from grace” and Gal 5:15-26 are not consonant with your light banter. Nothing tongue in cheek. Be open to the possibility you also misinterpreted Thomas.

 

[inocente]

Conscience left to itself is always right. But it can be perverted beyond recognition.

So anyone who disagrees must have a conscience perverted beyond recognition?

Thomas disagrees.

 

[John_Martin]

Thomas will not be understood with the reading of selections or even a full single reading of his Summa. When he wrote each question, even each word, in his understanding was a full understanding of the whole of his Summa, and more. This means that when you see the word “conscience” in the Summa, that to understand that sighting of it you must also call to mind all other references and uses of the term in the summa, and probably also understandings that Aristotle and others also had. With a full memory of these other descriptions. On the first time through the Summa you will wonder why he could be saying things; on the second and subsequent readings after having the whole big picture under your belt, you will begin saying, “Oh, I understand!”, and you will find delight in reading him. But if you are only reading him in sound-bites, you will find frustration and wonder how anyone can agree with him. When reading something in the first part of the second part, you must also “remember” things from the first part (which would seem obvious), but you must also remember and know things from the third part, which you have not yet reached if it is your first reading of the Summa, and also from the second part of the second part. You must know and remember the whole when reading each question.

As for the CCC, a catechism is not for the learner, but for the teacher of the faith. It is a resource for a teacher of the learners of the faith, so that they do not forget to teach anything and everything, and so that the teacher has both the big picture of the whole of the faith and the details. It is for the one who already knows Jesus is present in reality in the Eucharist, the Sacrament, but needs to review all the basic ways of looking at it so he can teach it fully to the learner.

The CCC is not a defense of anything, but was written for use by those who need no defense, for those who already believe every word of it before they ever read any of it. And the same with Thomas; His Summa is a defense of nothing, but it is for use by those who already believe him, already agree with him, without yet having read it; it is for clarification of what you already believe, so that you can be a wise helper of people, clear in the details yourself when you are helping.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Strange reading, Paul isn’t on twitter. He is far from his flock, trying to overcome false teachers “that they who attach so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create commotion among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated!” (Meyer). Paul’s “you have fallen away from grace” and Gal 5:15-26 are not consonant with your light banter. Nothing tongue in cheek. Be open to the possibility you also misinterpreted Thomas.

It’s sarcasm, not necessarily light banter. So, you think St. Paul is wishing harm upon people.

Thomas is fair game. I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong. Be open to the possibility that Thomas misinterprets the conscience. Thomas, I’m sure would welcome an objection and an opportunity to refute it. Another poster suggested reading/studying the ST twice before trying to object to it; that’s excessive.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Think of all the Catholics who are O.k. with same-sex marriage and abortion.

The devil has their conscience by the throat. That doesn’t mean, however, that deep down they don’t know they have deserted God for the devil.

Vice, habitual sin, deadens the voice of conscience. Personal sin makes us stupid further darkening the intellect darkened initially by Original Sin.

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
GAUDIUM ET SPES #16

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Another poster suggested reading/studying the ST twice before trying to object to it; that’s excessive.

Most people who have read the Summa once will not want to read it twice.

Unless they are masochists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Vice, habitual sin, deadens the voice of conscience. Personal sin makes us stupid further darkening the intellect darkened initially by Original Sin.

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
GAUDIUM ET SPES #16

Conscience never fails. No matter how dark it gets, the soul wittingly or unwittingly reaches for the Light that shines in the darkness.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Conscience never fails. No matter how dark it gets, the soul wittingly or unwittingly reaches for the Light that shines in the darkness.

So, are you saying you agree with Thomas’ position as stated in your OP?

Thomas defines conscience a little different than the CCC does. Thomas defines it as an act rooted in synderesis but also relying on reason and/or precepts. The CCC defines it as synderesis and their application(also ant act?) but not including precepts . Synderesis being very early on defined as the spark of conscience by St Jerome in the 400’s. Later refined, in the 1200’s, to mean the innate natural law that human beings poses. Today, the CCC defines conscience as “the inner voice from God written on our hearts”, that sounds a lot like the early definitions of synderesis by St. Jerome and other theologians of the 13th century. Moreover, synderesis is said to be incorruptible.