Freedom of Conscience

[tipiloschi]

I need help with this one . . . We are called to follow our conscience insofar that it is properly informed by the teaching Magisterium. . . .

How do you engage then, thougtful catholics who pray fervently and who say they have read church teaching on contraception but simply feel that with their diligent reflection they feel that using contraception is OK for them?

 

[Denise_Shae]

You might point them to the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

• 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

*Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. *

If they sincerely believe in the Teachings of the Catholic Church, their conscience cannot say, “it’s Okay”.

It’s right there in black and white; it’s an Absolute. In this instance, using one’s conscience doesn’t apply. There’s no other way to interpret, “intrinsically evil”.

God Bless.

In His Most Sacred Heart,

Denise

 

[tipiloschi]

Thanks

 

[Denise_Shae]

You’re very welcome.

I know that’s not the answer those people want to hear, but they have to know the Truth.

People have actually argued with me about artificial birth control after seeing that text. So, I just hand them the book and say, “Here; argue w/that”. Don’t shoot the messanger.

God Bless.

In His Most Sacred Heart,

Denise

 

[Genesis315]

It bears pointing out that freedom of conscience just means that people cannot be coerced into acting against their conscience. It does not mean that such action is not sinful or that people can believe whatever they want an have it not be a sin–it is not license.

According the Second Vatican Council
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2relfre.htm

On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth, and to hold fast to it. This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force.
…
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I need help with this one . . . We are called to follow our conscience insofar that it is properly informed by the teaching Magisterium. . . .

How do you engage then, thougtful catholics who pray fervently and who say they have read church teaching on contraception but simply feel that with their diligent reflection they feel that using contraception is OK for them?

How would you be in such a position?

 

[Corki]

I need help with this one . . . We are called to follow our conscience insofar that it is properly informed by the teaching Magisterium. . . .

How do you engage then, thougtful catholics who pray fervently and who say they have read church teaching on contraception but simply feel that with their diligent reflection they feel that using contraception is OK for them?

Actually, we are called to follow our conscience insofar as it is properly formed according to the teachings of the Church. People are always mixing this up and saying “informed”. It is not just a case of reading everything and making up your own mind. You have to form your conscience first and then measure your decisions against that properly formed conscience. You also have to give assent to the teachings of the Church and her authority regarding matters of faith and morals. Using that criteria, noone could say that using contraception (for example) is OK.

 

[dulcissima]

Pope Benedict gave a speech on this back in 1991 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Here are a few interesting paragraph’s from it:

Morality of conscience and morality of authority as two opposing models, appear to be locked in struggle with each other. Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority. Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word.

Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.

…Conscience appeared here not as a window through which one can see outward to that common truth which founds and sustains us all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth, the community of needs and responsibilities. Conscience here does not mean man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential. Rather, it appears as subjectivity’s protective shell into which man can escape and there hide from reality….

Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste.

 

[tipiloschi]

Good stuff.

 

[setter]

Pope Benedict gave a speech on this back in 1991 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Here are a few interesting paragraph’s from it:

…Conscience appeared here not as a window through which one can see outward to that common truth which founds and sustains us all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth, the community of needs and responsibilities. Conscience here does not mean man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential. Rather, it appears as subjectivity’s protective shell into which man can escape and there hide from reality….

Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste.

Wow …This excerpt has a beautifully poetic tone to it. Thanks for sharing this …good stuff.

 

[setter]

I need help with this one . . . We are called to follow our conscience insofar that it is properly informed by the teaching Magisterium. . . .

How do you engage then, thougtful catholics who pray fervently and who say they have read church teaching on contraception but simply feel that with their diligent reflection they feel that using contraception is OK for them?

I have found the Catechism of the Catholic Church ARTICLE 6: MORAL CONSCIENCE, Paragraphs 1776 – 1802
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1778 a very useful summary for a basic grounding in the responsibility of each Catholic to develop a *well formed *and informed conscience in conformity with authoritative Church teaching.

Unfortunately, many folks (and theologians) do not begin with the premise that the Church has been entrusted with infallability in matters of faith and morals, but rather look for exceptions that demonstrate otherwise.

 

[fix]

The link to the Ratzinger talk is a classic and should be read in full. I offer this as well:

** The Inconvenient
Conscience**

 **George Cardinal Pell**

…This specifically Catholic view rejects the mistaken doctrine of the primacy of conscience and clearly asserts the primacy of truth. “It is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives,” the pope writes. “In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a ‘subjective’ error about moral good with the ‘objective’ truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.”…
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0505/articles/pell.html

 

[Orionthehunter]

First of all we need to acknowledge and understand as Christians that God is all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent (and all the other "alls and omnis) and can’t lie. God is Truth.

Second, if He can’t lie, there is no contradiction in what He reveals to us in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Teaching, nature, and in what the Holy Spirit says to us in our conscience. Whenever there is a contradiction between any of them, we need to prayerfully discern what we interpret to be not of God. This is where our reason, will and conscience (all great gifts from God that distinquish us from others) come in.

But, if our conscience tells us it is ok to use contraception, abort babies, steal from our neighbor, etc. while Scripture, Tradition, or Teaching tells us otherwise in clear and unambiguous terms, we really have no choice but to rationally determine what we hear in our conscience is not of God. A God who can’t lie won’t have truths that are different for different people as they would cease to be Truths.

 

[dulcissima]

First of all we need to acknowledge and understand as Christians that God is all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent (and all the other "alls and omnis) and can’t lie. God is Truth.

Second, if He can’t lie, there is no contradiction in what He reveals to us in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Teaching, nature, and in what the Holy Spirit says to us in our conscience. Whenever there is a contradiction between any of them, we need to prayerfully discern what we interpret to be not of God. This is where our reason, will and conscience (all great gifts from God that distinquish us from others) come in.

But, if our conscience tells us it is ok to use contraception, abort babies, steal from our neighbor, etc. while Scripture, Tradition, or Teaching tells us otherwise in clear and unambiguous terms, we really have no choice but to rationally determine what we hear in our conscience is not of God. A God who can’t lie won’t have truths that are different for different people as they would cease to be Truths.

That is probably the most concise and logical explanation I have ever heard.

 

[tipiloschi]

Thanks for your concise answer. Good Stuff

 

[tipiloschi]

Pope Benedict gave a speech on this back in 1991 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Here are a few interesting paragraph’s from it:

Any one care to clarify in regular man’s terms (or even children’s book terms) what Ratzinger is talking about? Thanks

 

[Orionthehunter]

Any one care to clarify in regular man’s terms (or even children’s book terms) what Ratzinger is talking about? Thanks

Our current Pope is among the smartest men alive. He is among the most learned and intellectually grounded theologians in history. And, I believe his great intellect and learning is made wise by the Holy Spirit.

It is impossible to “summarize” his thoughts in a few words on virtually any subject. He wrote a book called “Introduction to Christianity.” When I bought the book, I thought it would be laymen’s discussion on Christianity and give me some insight into our new Pope.

Well, the prologue explained that this book was going to breakdown the Nicene Creed as it is meant to summarize our beliefs as Christians. Sounds good doesn’t it.

Joke was on me. It was deep and took me hours to grasp a single chapter. He spent the first 90 pages just explaining what it means to say “I believe”.

So, for us lesser minds, summarizing such profound and deep thoughts from the Pope is beyond us. My suggestion is to just print out these words and study them by poring over each sentence and try to discern and understand what he is saying. But for me to grasp what he says, I need to pray for assistance from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it is beyond me.

 

[Pug]

Any one care to clarify in regular man’s terms (or even children’s book terms) what Ratzinger is talking about? Thanks

Eventually he gets down to telling us what he thinks conscience is. He has broken it into two parts. One part he calls anamnesis (I’ll rename that “recognition” or “recollection”) and the other part he calls conscience (I’ll leave that alone, but mention that this is the “judgment” portion). If you have read Plato, the first part relates to the forms and how we recall them. If not, don’t worry.

We are created in the image of God, and hidden in our hearts is an appreciation of what is good. The truth answers the need that is within all our hearts, so we can recognize it. This is the first part of conscience. When we see the truth, somehow in our inner self we can recall it as coming from the divine, from which we came. It is not some exterior thing imposed from without. When we hear the 10 commandments, we can recognize the truth.

When we are in a situation and have to decide what to do, the second part, the conscience, renders a judgment of what is the correct thing to do. This must be followed. That is what one should do. However, if one has stifled the recognition of the truth, if one has deliberately blinded oneself or chosen to ignore it so many times that its voice is no longer audible, the conscience can be rendering a really awful judgment. You are at fault for that blinding of yourself. Thus a Nazi of old could be really convinced they are doing the right thing by killing people, but they are still horribly guilty for having blinded themselves so.

The first part, the recollection in all of us, this is not a subjective thing. If we retreat into the second portion of conscience after blinding the first, we will live in an empty shell, and we will not be moving toward the truth that satisfies us, that we yearn for. The truth does set you free.

My two cent quickie interpretation for you. Don’t take it as gospel, okay?

 

[batteddy]

They have an obligation simply according to Reason and Natural Law to properly form their conscience and listen to Revelation and the Church Magisterium.

BUT, I would venture to say that if they SINCERELY are intellectually (and not just selfishly or emotionally) convinced that something is okay, or even oligatory…then ignorance might make them not personally culpable. Though, not forming your conscience correctly (and intellectually honestly) can itself be a sin…so some ignorances are culpable ignorances.

It is still objectively evil, but if someone SINCERELY believes what they are doing is good, and have sincerely tried to form their conscience correctly…but somehow have still been convinced of a falsehood (perhaps they were brainwashed by someone else, etc)…well, then, in the “internal forum” it probably isn’t a sin.

We who know the truth, however, still have an obligation to try to convince them and correct their malformed conscience, and to make the objectively evil act illegal.

 

[Veritas41]

Some great replies in this thread! My post doesn’t really deal directly to the issue of conscience (I can’t really add anything to the excellent posts on the issue), but some peripheral issues.

1. Do your friends understand the *why *behind the Church’s teaching on contraception? Christopher West has done an excellent job explaining in layman’s terms Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, “Theology of the Body for Beginners” and “Theology of the Body Explained.” This really gets to the heart of why contraception is intrinsically evil.
2. Do your friends realize that many contraceptives are abortifacient in nature and that in using them they could possibly be aborting their own children instead of simply preventing conception? I’ve met many Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, who do not realize this.
3. Are they aware of the history of the modern contraceptive movement? Before I became Catholic, the book that definitively turned me away from contraception was George Grant’s Granned Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. It clearly details the evil motives and practices of those responsible for promoting contraceptives in the early 20th century. Elasah Drogin, a Catholic, has also written, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society. There are probably other books out there on the subject, but I think it’s important for people to understand the evil roots of the contraceptive movement.