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

[Dovekin]

As I quoted from VS 70 in an earlier post:

VS 70 both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.

As we are discussing conscience, we must acknowledge the difference between grave matter and mortal sin in the Church’s teaching. The assertion that every individual who uses contraception is “culpable” is based on a partial understanding of Church teaching. (Insert your quote from Fides et Ratio et alia here.)

Alongside this, you seem to want to negate the. Presence of God with us. We have been given the Holy Spirit. The objective moral law is written within us. In conscience, we meet God. If someone comes to the conclusion in conscience that God says “this is right” they must obey.

If contraception is a sin (as the church teaches) then we are either culpable or not culpable for committing it. Some seem to believe that if we follow a conscience which truly judges contraception to be acceptable, then we will not be culpable. This it seems to me to be an error

I agree, that is an error. Conscience can be wrong. It might not be God’s voice telling someone “this is right.” That does not lessen the responsibility to follow one’s conscience; rather it heightens the responsibility to form one’s conscience. When conscience is erroneous, there will be consequences. And there will be consequences if you choose not to follow God who speaks wih you.

Conscience is what tells us “this is right” or “that is wrong”. It may be led astray, but it is formed by our relationship with God. If we want to follow God, we have no choice but to follow our conscience. If we are wrong, there are consequences; still we are faithful. If we abandon our conscience out of fear of punishment, we abandon God’s guidance in our lives.

 

[Ender]

As we are discussing conscience, we must acknowledge the difference between grave matter and mortal sin in the Church’s teaching. The assertion that every individual who uses contraception is “culpable” is based on a partial understanding of Church teaching. (Insert your quote from Fides et Ratio et alia here.)

I have been very careful on this point not to make the assertion that “every individual who uses contraception is culpable”. My statement (post 35) was much more specific: “will a Catholic who rejects church teaching on this subject be held culpable for freely choosing to do evil?”

When conscience is erroneous, there will be consequences. And there will be consequences if you choose not to follow God who speaks with you.

It seems this would be a case where the person is culpable no matter what he does. You have to admit, it hardly seems that could be true.

If we want to follow God, we have no choice but to follow our conscience.

If in following our conscience we commit a sin in what sense can that be called “following God”?

If we are wrong, there are consequences; still we are faithful. If we abandon our conscience out of fear of punishment, we abandon God’s guidance in our lives.

Why would we fear punishment if we are truly convinced we are doing right? The only reason we would fear punishment is if we thought it possible we were doing wrong, and if we think we may be doing something wrong, and do it anyway, that is in itself a wrong.

“If a man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience.” (VS 60)

 

[Dovekin]

I have been very careful on this point not to make the assertion that “ every individual who uses contraception is culpable ”. My statement (post 35) was much more specific: “ will a Catholic who rejects church teaching on this subject be held culpable for freely choosing to do evil ?”

OK. Not all Catholics who reject Church teaching will be held culpable. See my last note for explanation of why.

It seems this would be a case where the person is culpable no matter what he does. You have to admit, it hardly seems that could be true.

That is the dilemma. The solution is to correctly form one’s conscience, to again look at Church teaching. If one’s conscience still does not accept, they will still be in a difficult position.

If in following our conscience we commit a sin in what sense can that be called “following God”?

Conscience is what determines if “this is right”. Since God alone is good, this judgement is about God; this can only be done with the objective moral law written on our hearts, with our conversation with God who lives within us, with our understanding of God gained from prayer and prior virtuous acts, with Church teaching, etc. As a Catholic, I assume you believe God is with us in all those things.

Why would we fear punishment if we are truly convinced we are doing right?

Because other people go around condemning those who agree with us? Primarily, this is a question of conscience and conscience should not generally allow threats to persuade us.

 

[Ender]

OK. Not all Catholics who reject Church teaching will be held culpable. See my last note for explanation of why.

I’m trying to understand your position here but it is difficult for me to grasp. In your previous post you said:
“When conscience is erroneous, there will be consequences. And there will be consequences if you choose not to follow God who speaks with you.”

I’m trying to understand why only some Catholics who reject church teaching are culpable. If I disregard what the church teaches because my conscience tells me to, and commit a sin is it your position that I will not be accountable for that sin because I followed my conscience? If so this confirms what the OP said: our conscience is a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card; we can do whatever we want no matter how heinous and not be culpable so long as our conscience is clear. That seems unlikely.

That is the dilemma. The solution is to correctly form one’s conscience, to again look at Church teaching. If one’s conscience still does not accept, they will still be in a difficult position.

The “difficult position” you speak of is nothing less than being culpable regardless of which option is chosen. That isn’t a difficult position; that is an impossible one. We cannot be faced with a moral choice where the is no right answer.

Conscience is what determines if “this is right”. Since God alone is good, this judgement is about God; this can only be done with the objective moral law written on our hearts, with our conversation with God who lives within us, with our understanding of God gained from prayer and prior virtuous acts, with Church teaching, etc. As a Catholic, I assume you believe God is with us in all those things.

If I sin I can be pretty sure God is not with me.

Yes, the conscience makes a judgment about what is right, and as you say that judgment is based on the objective moral law, church teaching, etc. We know, however, that our understanding of the moral law can conflict with what the church teaches, and that in such cases (if I understand you) it is our conscience that takes precedence. That is what I disagree with.

To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of eing at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment…There is a tendency to grant tot the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (VS #32)

 

[Dovekin]

I’m trying to understand why only some Catholics who reject church teaching are culpable.

For the third time:

VS 70 both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.

We cannot be faced with a moral choice where the is no right answer.

The right answer is to form one’s conscience properly. It may not be possible to do that, and that leaves difficult choices.

We know, however, that our understanding of the moral law can conflict with what the church teaches, and that in such cases (if I understand you) it is our conscience that takes precedence. That is what I disagree with.

Thank you for the quote from VS 32. It saves me from looking for it. Now if I could only figure out why you are quoting passages that explain my position.

 

[Dovekin]

If I disregard what the church teaches because my conscience tells me to, and commit a sin is it your position that I will not be accountable for that sin because I followed my conscience?

This is not my position. Repeat 3 times for emphasis.

If I commit the grave matter of a sin, it is not a sin unless I have full knowledge and deliberate consent. If I do it because my conscience tells me, those conditions still apply. It might be a sin, it might not. Odds are that it is not a sin, since if I had full knowledge I would not think my conscience was telling me to do it. But it might be a sin. Only God knows.

Suppose the Church clearly teaches usury is a sin.
If I accept that teaching, I will not borrow money.
Suppose I reject that teaching.
I may borrow money, but I will have to pay exorbitant interest.
There are consequences to rejecting doctrine - exorbitant interest- that are incurred. They do not disappear if conscience guides me.

 

[Ender]

VS 70 both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.

This is not relevant. I specified that it was a Catholic who rejected church teaching in favor of his own judgment. In such a case there is lack neither of full awareness nor deliberate consent.

The right answer is to form one’s conscience properly. It may not be possible to do that, and that leaves difficult choices.

This is not the point being discussed. The choice faced is between following church teaching or one’s conscience. As was said before:

Ender: It seems this would be a case where the person is culpable no matter what he does.
Dovekin: That is the dilemma.

I reject the notion that we can face a moral choice where we sin no matter what we choose.

Thank you for the quote from VS 32. It saves me from looking for it. Now if I could only figure out why you are quoting passages that explain my position.

There is nothing in it that supports your position.

If I commit the grave matter of a sin, it is not a sin unless I have full knowledge and deliberate consent. If I do it because my conscience tells me, those conditions still apply. It might be a sin, it might not.

I understand the requirements of full knowledge and deliberate consent are required for culpability for grave sin, but suggesting that a Catholic who knowingly rejects church teaching lacks either knowledge or consent is to stretch the meaning of those terms beyond recognition.

Odds are that it is not a sin, since if I had full knowledge I would not think my conscience was telling me to do it.

This excuse would seem to apply to everyone in pretty much all cases. Most people who commit sins/crimes justify it to themselves; it is the unusual case where someone thinks “I know this is wrong but I’m doing it anyway.” What is normal is for the individual to rationalize his behavior to make it seem right, and in this case the rationalization is “If I think it’s OK then it is OK, and I can’t be held responsible.”

 

[John10]

The best way for me to deal with this is to imagine it as a human trial. We do not convict someone who is clearly incapable of differentiating right from wrong.

We also take into account the circumstances, it is not the same to do a pre-meditated cold blood murder than to kill someone after discovering a cheating partner.

Conscience and how fully aware and free we are to do evil things does impact the severity of our sins. We do have a moral obligation and duty for form our conscience.

In the case of our trail with God however perfect justice will be served, since everything we thought, did and spoke will be put on trail from our birth till the day we die.

 

[Dovekin]

To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment…There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (VS #32)

How does this not support my position? I have always said what I have bolded here, that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience.

Conscience can make mistakes, as I have said a few times and is emphasized in the italicized text. And I have tried to show that conscience should be formed by church teaching, prayer, the moral law written on our hearts, etc.

So why do you claim it does not support what I have written? How do you see this passage contradicting me?

 

[adgloriam]

Thanks @Dovekin I personally appreciate your contributions and line of thought. I have to admit, I don’t understand it and have to read up on it…

 

[Ender]

How does this not support my position? I have always said what I have bolded here, that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience .

Conscience can make mistakes, as I have said a few times and is emphasized in the italicized text. And I have tried to show that conscience should be formed by church teaching, prayer, the moral law written on our hearts, etc.

So why do you claim it does not support what I have written? How do you see this passage contradicting me?

In order for you to maintain your position you have to take the first part of the first sentence and then disregard everything else that was said. This is what true cherry picking looks like. There can be competing obligations, and there is no justification for choosing one and ignoring the other. Our obligation is to resolve that tension, not simply disregard the obligation we find restrictive, which is all you have done.

Your position requires you to reject any number of doctrines and beliefs the church holds about herself. You have done nothing less than to claim the right of Adam and Eve to decide for yourself…and expect not to be punished for your choices.

…the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. …Freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. (VS 35)

 

[Dovekin]

You have done nothing less than to claim the right of Adam and Eve to decide for yourself

That is called the Redemption, isn’t it? As St Paul said in Sunday’s epistle,

For freedom Christ set us free;
so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.
For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters

Or as VS 41:

one must acknowledge in the freedom of the human person the image and the nearness of God, who is present in all (cf. Eph 4:6). But one must likewise acknowledge the majesty of the God of the universe and revere the holiness of the law of God, who is infinitely transcendent: Deus semper maior .

The rest of your note just repeats unfounded accusations that I have answered in the past. There is no point in going over them again since you have not heard before.

 

[JimG]

Conscience is a faculty of the human intellect by which we make judgements about right and wrong. Obviously it has to be well formed. It is formed by knowing the moral law. That is not something ingrained or preformatted, except to the extent that by nature our intellect is designed to conform to reality. We still have to study the moral law and obey the divine law and the teachings of the magisterium.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This is a core issue. First, there are those who believe that “right” and “wrong” are relative–not just in your own mind and conscience, but in reality. Catholics believe that “right” and “wrong” are objective realities, absolute, not relative.

Having said that, the issue then becomes “How can we determine what is the ‘absolute’ right?” Some would say (and have said above): “Follow what the Church teaches.” But then I think the right response would be: “Mindlessly? Like a robot? Without any rational reasons?” To simply follow Church teaching blindly is to negate the concept of conscience.

So are there, or could there be, conflicts between Church teachings and conscience? Certainly. Some are minor, some are major. As the catechism and other posters have pointed out, you need to form your conscience correctly. The very wording of this precludes being a mindless robot simply following Church teachings. So then the question becomes, how much time should you spend “forming your conscience”? And I think the reasonable answer is “The time you should spend investigating the rightness or wrongness of something should be proportionate to the importance of whatever it is you are investigating.” To take a common question on this forum: “Is it a sin to miss Mass on Sunday?” The Church tells us this would be a mortal sin. But are there legitimate reasons to miss Mass on Sunday? Of course. Should you agonize every Sunday about whether or not you should go to Mass? No, that’s silly. You need, at some point, to create a set of circumstances in your own mind that excuse you from Mass: your own sickness, your other responsibilities (maybe a sick child, a crucial job, etc.), unique circumstance (you’re travelling and the nearest church is 50 miles away), etc. But you would spend a lot more time on a more complex issue, and much less time on a more minor issue. Neither God nor the Church expects you to spend years of research on whether or not a minor action is right or wrong.

However, there is something people overlook. I’ve used this example several times, so if you’ve read previous posts, forgive me. Let’s take a simple law: “You have to stop your car at a red light.” Ok, we all agree that’s a good law. But are there exceptions? Of course, and you can make your own long list. Who would decide if the exceptions are valid? First, a policeman who might stop you. He might give you a ticket or might let you go, depending on your reason for not stopping. The policeman is the Church. But even if the policeman gives you a ticket, you can go to court and plead your case before a judge (God). The judge will give you a definitive answer. The Church is in the position of the gov. body who passed the “You have to stop at a red light” law. The Church says “This is right, this is wrong.” Are there exceptions? Of course. “Thou shalt not kill.” Are there exceptions? Of course. Are some exceptions more iffy than others? Of course. And this is where conscience comes in.

 

[Ender]

You have done nothing less than to claim the right of Adam and Eve to decide for yourself

Adam and Eve were punished for following their consciences. We should expect the same treatment when our judgments are similarly flawed. Your “we’re excused if we follow our conscience” position wouldn’t justify punishing the 9/11 terrorists inasmuch as they pretty clearly were following theirs. It is the apotheosis of rationalization and self justification.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If contraception is a sin (as the church teaches) then we are either culpable or not culpable for committing it. Some seem to believe that if we follow a conscience which truly judges contraception to be acceptable, then we will not be culpable. This it seems to me to be an error.

Conscience does not make evil good and it does not excuse us from responsibility for sin.

I can only speak from my own experience. In the years immediately following high school (where we were assigned to read Humanae vitae, do a written report on it, then the priest told the class that you can “follow your conscience”), I struggled with the contraception issue. I could easily foresee that it would make my future married life more difficult if I followed the Church’s teaching, and I could also foresee that it would make it far, far more difficult for me to find a spouse who would accept this. I looked for every way out.

Then, in my search for a solution, I came across a booklet written by, of all people, Norman Vincent Peale. He said, and I am paraphrasing, that if you want to get right with God, you have to give up everything that you know is wrong. Simply put and strong words to ponder. Then after this, I chanced upon a speech given by one Dr Sean O’Reilly (I think that was his name), in a publication of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF). I have searched and searched for his exact quote and cannot find it. It went something like this: “And how will you react, when you finally have to face Our Lord? What will you say, what can you say, when He has to say to you, ‘Why did you not listen to my vicar Paul when he spoke to you? Get out of my sight, you worthless wretch!’”. That was it. I was busted. (And, yes, many years later I did find a spouse who accepted Humanae vitae.)

I do not think that many of those who practice contraception actually start off with disagreeing with Humanae vitae. No, it seems to me that they see a technology — artificial birth control — that works, and that the larger society, including many who profess the name of Christian and live ostensibly holy lives, use it without any qualms whatsoever. ABC works, and they see people having an easier, frequently more prosperous, and outwardly happier life because of using it. In other words, they want the toys that the neighbor kids have. These other people use ABC, they continue to believe in Christ, and all is sweetness and light. The sun doesn’t fall out of the sky, and the world doesn’t quit spinning on its axis, because these people use ABC. So they reason, this must be OK, and the Pope is just a celibate old man who doesn’t understand real people in everyday life.

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

 

[Dovekin]

Your “ we’re excused if we follow our conscience ” position

How is that my position?

 

[Dovekin]

Conscience is a faculty of the human intellect by which we make judgements about right and wrong. Obviously it has to be well formed. It is formed by knowing the moral law. That is not something ingrained or preformatted, except to the extent that by nature our intellect is designed to conform to reality. We still have to study the moral law and obey the divine law and the teachings of the magisterium.

Excellent summary imo.

Conscience is the place where all our study, all our prayer, all our experience is weighed and where we make a judgement of what is right and what is wrong.

If our conscience is wrong, which it can be, the hope is to turn to God. The Church teaches to guide our conscience, so that we will see what is truly right and correct our conscience. But Church teaching is not a substitute for conscience as some try to say. It is an aid, but it has to be conscience that decides, because that is what conscience does.

A poorly formed conscience does not excuse a sin. I do not know how to assert this more clearly. It seems not to register on some who read what I have written. Actions have consequences, even, or especially, those reached in conscience.

The more you use your conscience, the more you use your intellect to weigh things and decide, the stronger conscience becomes. We were created for this freedom.

OTOH, if you simply do what someone else tells you to do, conscience is weakened. You are not taking responsibility for your actions. There is some value to deferring to the Church, but it still is not the freedom God has called us to. You will do the right thing, but it will not have the advantages that acting with a well formed conscience. You may even begin tto be suspicious of every personal decision and deny the presence of God in our lives.

I write this only to explain my position, since some still misunderstand and misrepresent what I have said.

 

[steve-b]

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?

From the CCC (all emphasis mine)

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

WHY?​

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.

 

[Pug]

You need, at some point, to create a set of circumstances in your own mind that excuse you from Mass: your own sickness, your other responsibilities (maybe a sick child, a crucial job, etc.), unique circumstance (you’re travelling and the nearest church is 50 miles away), etc. But you would spend a lot more time on a more complex issue, and much less time on a more minor issue.

I think this is a good point. We do develop a list and then tend to follow it, decision-free. But that is hard to do when starting out as a from scratch Catholic.