I don't understand what the church teaches about conscience?

[AUGUSTINE1102]

I will most likely get fired for this since everything I say or do gets flagged because you can’t be critical in any way of anybody on anything here but here I go:

I’ve read the catechism and articles about John Paul II assessment of conscience and it seems pretty straightforward. But after reading amoris laetitia chapter 8 and having read numerous liberal hierarchs after its publication it seems that conscience is a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” It seems that a person there’s not fully conscious or informed can follow their conscience I’m basically excuse anything from the divorced and civilly remarried without an annulment two homosexuals. This seems to be the thrust in fact nowaday 2 normalize this behavior in the church through, in my opinion, and erroneous assessment of conscience.

What truly is conscience? Do we have a moral obligation and duty to form properly our conscience? Does conscience ever excuse sin and deviations from the moral law of Christ in the church?

 

[Fauken]

What truly is conscience?

I’m not sure if this will help, but here’s a rather detailed article over it:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

Do we have a moral obligation and duty to form properly our conscience?

Yes we do.

Does conscience ever excuse sin and deviations from the moral law of Christ in the church?

I would think it depends. Obviously the conscience and catechesis of a child before the age of reason is not that of a Catholic adult who has been devoted to the Faith for 20 years. That child still has much to learn and hasn’t had a lot of time to do so. God will not be fooled, however, by those who try to keep themselves ignorant on purpose or those too lazy to properly inform their consciences.

 

[Dovekin]

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.
Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.
Gaudium et Spes 16

 

[Ender]

But after reading amoris laetitia chapter 8 and having read numerous liberal hierarchs after its publication it seems that conscience is a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

It seems you already suspect that this cannot be an accurate interpretation. The fact that it is a fairly common understanding doesn’t change that.

The position seems based on a misunderstanding of this passage in the catechism: “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

As far as it goes this is surely true. The problem is that those who cite this passage (or ones similar to it) don’t go far enough in understanding it. For example, this:

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.

Clearly ones conscience can err, so the question becomes: are we culpable when we make an error of conscience? And the answer is: quite possibly. Clearly this answer does not support the Get-Out-Of-Jail_Free interpretation.

1790 … it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

It is clear the church teaches that following one’s conscience alone does not free one from culpability for acting immorally, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Homerun14]

By definition, conscience is your inner self urging you to resist temptation and do what is right and God’s will. Your conscience is not the determining factor as to whether your actions are OK in God’s view. God’s will has been revealed to us mainly in the Ten Commandments and the other commandments Jesus told us as stated in Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that we are to obey God’s Commandments – unless our consciences tell us otherwise.

We are commanded to worship God via attendance at Mass on Sundays. It is common today for people to skip Sunday Mass saying that God knows we love Him, so we don’t have to show Him that by being at Mass every Sunday. Our consciences are clear. No, they have still sinned against God’s will even though their consciences are clear in their own minds. The same goes for Catholics whose consciences tell them that homosexual activity is alright, or abortion is OK, or stealing from someone who is richer than you is fine.

The concept that we are to follow our consciences, but with the disclaimer that you are obligated to form a correct conscience is just something to confuse people. You are not OK to follow your conscience if it is urging you to go against God’s revealed will. Your conscience does not determine whether an action is right or wrong. The Commandments do that.

The OP’s observation that this liberal concept about consciences sounding like Get Out of Jail Free cards is right on.

 

[bobperk]

Don’t feel bad about the title of your thread. It also seems to apply to most clergy today, including many at the highest levels.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I will most likely get fired for this since everything I say or do gets flagged because you can’t be critical in any way of anybody on anything here but here I go:

Want some to go with that ?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The concept that we are to follow our consciences, but with the disclaimer that you are obligated to form a correct conscience is just something to confuse people. You are not OK to follow your conscience if it is urging you to go against God’s revealed will. Your conscience does not determine whether an action is right or wrong. The Commandments do that.

It’s very simple. You form your conscience in accord with the teachings of the Church. Period. If you run upon a situation where your “conscience” tells you that something is right when it isn’t, or wrong when it isn’t, you just assume you are wrong and you change your mind and your will to adhere with what the Church has taught.

It’s not

 

[Pug]

Conscience is our last, best judgment of what is right/wrong in the situation. Since it is our best judgment in light of all things considered, then there is nothing more to consider, so you have to follow it. We have a moral obligation to properly form our conscience. Sometimes we are ignorant, and are excused for not knowing, true, but ignorance can be our fault, and then we bear guilt for it.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think AL wants to make everyone into their own inviolable island of conscience, but I can see why you might feel that way in response to it.

Maybe there is a perfect emoji for every circumstance. It even has an umbrella to protect from rays of truth. I’m quite pleased with it.

 

[Dovekin]

It’s very simple. You form your conscience in accord with the teachings of the Church. Period. If you run upon a situation where your “conscience” tells you that something is right when it isn’t, or wrong when it isn’t, you just assume you are wrong and you change your mind and your will to adhere with what the Church has taught.

How would you know that something which your conscience tells you is right, isn’t right? Conscience is how you determine what is right or wrong.

Assuming you are wrong, and changing to something you believe is not right, condemns you. God has written a law on your heart, and you must adhere to that law.

 

[Ender]

How would you know that something which your conscience tells you is right, isn’t right? Conscience is how you determine what is right or wrong.

The catechism says we must obey “the certain judgment of our conscience”, but if you know what the church teaches and that your belief is contrary to it, just how certain can you be that you are right and the church is wrong?

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

It is a problem, I recognize that, but if you’re sure you are right and the church is wrong you should also be willing to accept the consequences if you are in error. As has been pointed out, just because you believe what you do is right does not exempt you from culpability if you are wrong.

 

[Dovekin]

I agree. My point was just that it is conscience that tells you what is right or wrong. How can it tell you it is right and not right at the same time? Or is there some standard that can overrule conscience?

 

[Ender]

I agree. My point was just that it is conscience that tells you what is right or wrong. How can it tell you it is right and not right at the same time? Or is there some standard that can overrule conscience?

“Conscience is a judgment of reason” and there is nothing to guarantee that the judgments it makes are not in error. If I think X is moral and know the church teaches that X is immoral I must choose. If I believe the church is what she claims to be then I have no good reason to doubt her position. If I reject her doctrine then I have no good reason to remain a Catholic because I have decided that her claims are not trustworthy.

It is not that our conscience is overruled; it is that we must choose - make a reasoned judgment - and be willing to accept both the implications and the consequences of those choices.

 

[Genesis315]

In addition to what others have said, it is also worthwhile to point out the following (from the Catechism):

“But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man” (CCC 1860).

 

[Dovekin]

It is not that our conscience is overruled; it is that we must choose - make a reasoned judgment - and be willing to accept both the implications and the consequences of those choices.

And where does that reasoned judgement take place, if not in the conscience? i was commenting on the following:

If you run upon a situation where your “conscience” tells you that something is right when it isn’t, or wrong when it isn’t, you just assume you are wrong and you change your mind and your will to adhere with what the Church has taught.

“when it isn’t” can only be known to the individual through conscience but we know conscience has determined it is right. So it must mean “when the church teaches differently.” That just makes it an example of abdicating responsibility and relying on imperfect knowledge of church teaching instead of deiciding based on your relationship with God in your conscience.

Church teaching needs to be considered within one’s conscience, not apart from it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If you run upon a situation where your “conscience” tells you that something is right when it isn’t, or wrong when it isn’t, you just assume you are wrong and you change your mind and your will to adhere with what the Church has taught.

No, the teaching of the Church needs to BE your conscience. You educate yourself so that they become one and the same. Otherwise you are saying that you have a “direct line to God” and that He is telling you something other than what the Church teaches.

I understand that one can just “feel” or “judge” that something is right or wrong, apart from what the Church teaches (or doesn’t teach). A case in point, for me, would be tattoos. I cannot accept that it is right for someone to make their body into a walking art gallery. Just using my own reasoning and sentiment, it looks to me like a large part of society has simply gone crazy in the past 10-20 years, and seized people with this wild urge to cover themselves with tattoos. (What is going to happen to those people when they age, and their skin becomes crepe-like and saggy, is interesting to contemplate, but is beside the point here.) There seems to be biblical teaching against it (Leviticus 19:28). Yet the Church does not condemn it. And neither can I. I don’t like it, I think it’s gross, it “seems” wrong to me, but I cannot go beyond the Church and say it is sinful. I would welcome an official teaching from the magisterium buttressing my viewpoint. But quite frankly, I can’t see that happening under the present pontificate. So I must be content just not to have a tattoo myself, and not to condemn it as sinful.

 

[Dovekin]

Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.

Conscience is indeed where we have a direct line to God. It is that relationship that tells us if something is right or wrong… This autonomy and freedom is given to us by God and abandoning it in order to follow someone else’s teaching is wrong, even if the teacher is the Church. There is too much of a chance that you do not understand things well enough, that it was not taught properly, etc. Choosing that option, instead of turning to God, is too dangerous.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.

In all Christian charity, I couldn’t disagree more. The Church teaches, we learn, we let her educate us, and we form ourselves that way. What you describe is more in line with Martin Luther and all those who came after him.

“Individual conscience” comes into play where we must apply the Church’s teachings to concrete situations, what is called casuistry. People can differ on how to apply these teachings. But it is not some kind of ex nihilo, as I said, “direct line to God”. An adult Catholic, well-formed in the faith, is capable of making this kind of judgment on their own, but if not, seek the wisdom of someone who is competent to give this kind of counsel — a confessor, spiritual director, or catechist.

 

[Dovekin]

You can believe that if you like. Is it Catholic? Absolutely not.

I think you would do better if you learned what the Church teaches about God’s presence in our hearts. Our moral choices create the world we live in. They need to be informed by what the Church teaches, but if we do not pay attention to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, we are nothing.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think you would do better if you learned what the Church teaches about God’s presence in our hearts. Our moral choices create the world we live in. They need to be informed by what the Church teaches, but if we do not pay attention to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, we are nothing.

The Holy Spirit will never guide anyone to believe contrary to what the Church teaches. If one comes to such a conclusion, it is not of God.

If I might ask, what kind of catechesis did you receive? When? Please don’t take this as an attack. It just sounds like you may have been taught a more modern, contemporary, post-Vatican II “flavor” of Catholicism. Not all such teaching has been in accord with the mind of the Church.

Just to clarify, I accept all of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, and I look to the Church throughout the centuries for wisdom, not just the past 50-60 years. I accept Vatican II with the analogy of faith (analogia fidei), comparing it to what was taught previously. There are some troubling areas (ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.) but nothing that can’t be understood in a traditional sense, if you are willing to try. As a practical matter, Vatican II is of very little interest to me.