How do you reconcile matters of concience with church law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abira
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just thinking about the two books you read about Marian devotions. Simply because the person is a Catholic doesn’t mean he’s correct. Example? Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, if you read his writings, prior to his departure from the Church, you may not have heard correct Church teaching.
 
well the one im still reading is ‘Mary: a catholic evangelical dialogue’

it has two opin ions stating why they believe what they do to eachother. But I wouldn’t read a protestant book trying to explain Catholic ideas, so I take your point.

S
 
Abira said:
ive read two books on marian devotion and ideas now and i find it so hard to accept some of it, I feel uncomfortable with most of it…

so the church would accept that even though I have trouble with these things, that I should accept that the church has a higher knowledge than me, and just keep trying to understand something?

what if a person never understands something?

S
Click to expand...
First, when investigating the Catholic Church you should not begin with Marian devotions for obvious reasons. If you do not accept the Papacy, Scripture and Tradition or and most importantly the Eucharist, Marian devotion is useless. In fact, placing aside the dogmatic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption into heaven, most Marian devotions are private and not neceesary for one to be Catholic. Why one would not consider them is beyond me but not necessary, none the less.

Your second statement rides with the understanding of what the Church actually is. The Church was established by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the living Word actualized within the context of the sacraments as being encounters with the living Christ.

Understanding something is only accomplished with time and patience. It is a journey. If I started to walk to New york from L.A., my initial feeling would be that I will never get there. But in reality if I put one foot in front of the other and accept the help offered by others one day my foot will set ground at my destination.

You can’t see Mary’s role because you are not there yet. Catholicism offers so much that one might become overwhelmed when trying to figure it all out at once. I suggest this order:
  1. Scripture; where did it originate? Do you believe in Apostolic Tradition as God’s revelation along with the Magisterium as the total deposit of faith? If not stop there, you’re not ready to move on.
  2. The Sacraments; Do you believe that they actualize Jesus in our lives? Is the Eucharist the actual Body and Blood of our Lord? Do you understand the teachings on transubstantiation? If not stop there, you’re not ready to move on.
  3. The Mass; Do you fully understand the Mass as the perpetuation of the once for the many sacrifice of our Lord? Do you see the Mass as your presence at the foot of the Cross? Do you understand the biblical typology referring to the Mass as the fulfillment of the Passover and Jesus as the New Covenant present as the Eternal High Priest as well as the victim being offered? This is the centrality of Christian faith.
After you fully come to terms with the above then you are Catholic in theology and can roam into devotions and other teachings of the Church. What I am trying to say is that without the top three areas mentioned above, the rest will seem senseless… God Bless…teachccd
 
Abira said:
well the one im still reading is ‘Mary: a catholic evangelical dialogue’

it has two opin ions stating why they believe what they do to eachother. But I wouldn’t read a protestant book trying to explain Catholic ideas, so I take your point.

S
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. Look for " The Real Mary" Why Evangelical Christians Can embrace the Mother of Jesus by Scot McKnight

This is a protestant author and while he does exhibit some doubts it’s amazing how close he comes. It’s a good read for those on the fence. I would not recommend it to Catholics who already understand the precious gift as Mary our Mother and her role within the Church.
 
teachccd said:
I beg to differ. Look for " The Real Mary" Why Evangelical Christians Can embrace the Mother of Jesus by Scot McKnight

This is a protestant author and while he does exhibit some doubts it’s amazing how close he comes. It’s a good read for those on the fence. I would not recommend it to Catholics who already understand the precious gift as Mary our Mother and her role within the Church.
Click to expand...
yeah, well this one has an anglican who became catholic arguing his case, and a catholic who became protestant.

I suppose i felt i had to understand how they look at mary as it’s the one thing that I find a massive block and one of the reasons i used to be so prejudiced against the catholic faith.

S
 
Abira said:
I suppose i felt i had to understand how they look at mary as it’s the one thing that I find a massive block and one of the reasons i used to be so prejudiced against the catholic faith.

S
Click to expand...
So where are you now with the Catholic faith?
 
To follow one’s conscience is an absolute obligation. One must always follow his conscience, no matter what. One has the objective obligation to have one’s conscience be properly informed by Church teaching (as well as by one’s own study and reflecting). Therefore, if one’s conscience is working correctly, it will tell you to be eduated by Church teaching, to approach Church teaching with an attitude of docility or an eagerness to learn and accept. But one must obey one’s conscience whether it is in fact working correctly or not.

So for example if your conscience told you that something was a mortal sin and you did it anyway with the full consent of your will, and that thing actually wasn’t a mortal sin (i.e. wasn’t grave matter), it would still be a mortal sin for you. Likewise, if your conscience told you that something wasn’t a sin and so you did it, but the thing objectively speaking was a sin, that wouldn’t have been a formal sin (though it would be a “material” sin) for you – however if your conscience was mistaken due to your own fault then the fault you had for a malformed conscience would constitute sin.

Something binds someone subjectively speaking only as mediated through his conscience. But objective obligations remain whether or not we are cognizant of them. And, we have an objective obligation – that I would say virtually all people are cognizant of, making it also for them a subjective obligation – to discover what our objective obligations are. So to neglect that pursuit of knowledge, that education of our conscience would be to violate our conscience.
 
Abira said:
I have a question:

How do you make a decision when your concience says to do one thing and yet all guidance from the church says another? If someone disagreed with a church teaching and followed their conscience…should the church support them if they believe that their conscience has lead them to a certain decision?

How can we always follow our concience in matters of faith, or any other matter?

Why does the church even give guidance if we are to follow our conscience?
Click to expand...
G.K. Chesterton said it well: “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.”

Speaking from my own personal experience:

When I have a question about certain teachings of the Church, I study up on the Church’s reasoning behind the teaching. I leave myself open to the Holy Spirit so that I can fully understand the information before me. There are good, strong reasons behind all of the magisterium in every case that I encounter. If I can’t embrace the teachings, I am at fault. Not the Church. If I can’t embrace the teachings and abide by them, I would be in a state of sin and unable to receive the Sacraments and thus would be cut off from the grace Jesus provides.

Peace to you,

Kelly
 
stbruno said:
lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_26conscience.html

I really like this discussion of conscience. There is even a section about confusing dissent with conscience and I think that applies in this discussion.
Click to expand...
It was a very good article. I recommend everyone read it. There was perhaps a slight obscurity.

Some readers when reading the article might be given the impression that one’s conscience can never conflict with infallible Church teaching. That would only be the case for those whose consciences told them that papal/Church infallibility was an absolutely certain doctrine. The consciences of non-Catholics probably wouldn’t tell them that and the consciences of Catholics who are not aware of the teaching of papal infallibility wouldn’t tell them that. And there may also be the consciences of Catholics who are aware of the teaching of Vatican I on infallibility but who doubt it – whose consciences don’t tell them that it is absolutely certain. In all these cases (as well as others that one can imagine) there can be a conflict between one’s conscience and an infallible Church teaching. And when there is such a disparity, it is always one’s absolute subjective obligation to follow one’s conscience (even though it happens to be erroneous and even though the absolute objective obligation to heed infallible Church teaching remains).

Let’s take an example of not the Vicar of God the Son, but God Himself speaking to someone. Let’s say that when God spoke to Moses, Moses was convinced in his conscience that it was not God at all but an evil, powerful, fallen angel that was giving him evil directives – then Moses would be subjectively bound by his conscience to disobey the direct command of God even while the objective obligation to heed God’s direct command remains. That’s how “supreme” one’s conscience is.

To violate one’s conscience is to do something one believes to be morally forbidden or to fail to do something one believes to be morally obligatory – and to do that which one believes to be morally forbidden is always a sin and to fail to do that which one believes to be morally obligatory is always a sin – and thus to violate one’s conscience is always, no matter what the circumstance, a sin.

Most people’s consciences – I would imagine – tell them that they have an obligation to educate their conscience as opposed to just relying on whims, fancies, or feelings. So, at least for most poeple, to not properly educate one’s conscience would be to violate it.

I wasn’t aware that Grisez rejects the traditional Church teaching on the death penalty (that the State has the right, in principle, to administer it in certain cases). Thanks for the link.
 
To me it’s a matter of choosing to stay in communion with The Church or follow your own way. I used to think many things that were contrary to Church teachings when I was a younger man that now as I have matured I understand why the Church teaches as she does. Had I followed the Church instead of my conscience back then, many fewer people would have been hurt by my sinful behavior.

I just wrote an article about this very thing on my blog talking about this very thing.
 
Abira said:
I have a question:

How do you make a decision when your concience says to do one thing and yet all guidance from the church says another? If someone disagreed with a church teaching and followed their conscience…should the church support them if they believe that their conscience has lead them to a certain decision?

How can we always follow our concience in matters of faith, or any other matter?

Why does the church even give guidance if we are to follow our conscience?
Click to expand...
Interesting questions! I would have to say that over time, through prayer…through immersing one’s self in the faith…as much as possibly…with God’s grace…one will eventually have a conscience that closely resembles Church Laws. Your thoughts will eventually coincide with the RCC teachings, because these teachings are from God…given to us through men…but are from God. Aligning one’s mind with God’s sounds like tricky business…and we always don’t agree with what God’s intent for us is…but that’s why we have the Church’s Laws…to help us to form *holier *consciences.
 
Abira said:
I have a question:

How do you make a decision when your concience says to do one thing and yet all guidance from the church says another? If someone disagreed with a church teaching and followed their conscience…should the church support them if they believe that their conscience has lead them to a certain decision?

How can we always follow our concience in matters of faith, or any other matter?

Why does the church even give guidance if we are to follow our conscience?
Click to expand...
Here is a good source:
“Does a Catholic have the right to dissent in relation to the Church?” means "Can a Catholic refuse, in conscience, to accept or obey some *major *aspect of church law or teaching without thereby affecting his position as a Catholic?"
Click to expand...
And this too:
** Drama of True and False Conscience**
Click to expand...
 
Good links from everyone, thanks.

this may be straying slightly - but is the idea of eventually forminga conscience that is alligned more with God similar to the way many view mary - in that things are done to her will, not through her power, but because her will and gods are one?

I can’t remember where I read some term or other for her that seemed to say she had some kind of onmipresence… i can find it again if that doesn’t sound right lol…

but the idea was that she had no power herself, but because her will was alligned with God’s then nothing would be against her will… if that makes sense.

How do people view others who follow their conscience and make wrong decisions?

are they mislead? or sinning? if they truly believe in their decisions, can they sin at all… I read a post earlier relating to this, but is that view the general concencus of the church?

S
 
The Church is the chief informant of conscience. It is vital in this role as a teacher of the individual.
On the other hand…what are we judged according to?
You must always follow your conscience. We are not judged on keeping the rules,** we are judged according to our conscience.**

Having said that, it is a very serious matter indeed to reject church teaching, so this must be avoided by carefully listening to the church, and informing yourself of exactly what the church is saying and why.

A helpful read would be section 16 of Gaudium et Spes. Here is a link to it…
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
 
cialovesyou said:
The Church is the chief informant of conscience. It is vital in this role as a teacher of the individual.
On the other hand…what are we judged according to?
You must always follow your conscience. We are not judged on keeping the rules,** we are judged according to our conscience.**

Having said that, it is a very serious matter indeed to reject church teaching, so this must be avoided by carefully listening to the church, and informing yourself of exactly what the church is saying and why.

A helpful read would be section 16 of Gaudium et Spes. Here is a link to it…
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
Click to expand...
thanks, good link 🙂
 
Abira:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on conscience - explained by Fr. Stephen Torroco, Moral Theologian (hope this helps you):

*Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience. *
 
I think this seems like a difficult question in principle, but in practice it is fairly straightforward to answer.

I think people who ‘know thyself’ as the old philosophical maxim goes, know when their conscience clearly tells them they must make a decision. Clearly we are weakened morally by our various weakness and frailties, but I believe (along with Kant) we still have the power to choose good or evil.

If a Pope or the Church taught something I believed was actually false, then I could no longer consider myself a Catholic. Integrity demands that I don’t be falsely religious, as that is really simply a form of selfish hypocrisy. My integrity as a seeker of truth demands I go wherever the truth leads, even if by some possibility in the end it isn’t in the Church. When I made the decision it was, I believed at the time the truth was found there. I have some difficulties at the moment with the encyclical ‘Dominus Iesus’ but there is a difference from that and for example, if the Church decided to teach the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits the Earth. One must live in accordance withwhat one accepts and believes to be the truth, not against it, in whatever one’s situation in life. To do otherwise in my view is a great sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top