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

[Dovekin]

Do you really think the catechesis in Germany, Italy or Spain 100 years ago was adequate? There have always been problems in catechesis. Not all such teaching is line with the mind of the Church. Not even the catechesis you received was perfect!

I am not saying this to criticize you, but to point you away from the tepid portrayals of tradition that you seem taken with. God’s Word is alive, it pierces more surely than a two edged sword. Read Gaudium et Spes 12-20 and then tell me whar conscience is about. What you have posted so far is very different from what the Church has always taught imo. Listening to the Church’s authentic magisterium might shake you out of your indifference to Vatican 2, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am not saying this to criticize you, but to point you away from the tepid portrayals of tradition that you seem taken with. God’s Word is alive, it pierces more surely than a two edged sword. Read Gaudium et Spes 12-20 and then tell me whar conscience is about. What you have posted so far is very different from what the Church has always taught imo. Listening to the Church’s authentic magisterium might shake you out of your indifference to Vatican 2, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.

I see nothing in the G&S passage you cite that says the Church’s teachings may take a back seat to some notion of “conscience” that rests in the individual. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance, but that is where the corrective role of the Church comes into play.

I will concede that an errant conscience, errant but nonetheless the individual’s heartfelt conviction that God is calling him to a certain course of action, can perhaps be followed without incurring personal guilt. For instance, a Catholic gets hold of some religious tract that urges him to reject the Church. He becomes convinced that this is right, and that he must abandon the Church’s claims to truth. He might be persuaded that Marian devotion is idolatry, that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, that falling down and worshipping Our Lord under the forms of bread and wine is idolatry, and so on. He becomes convinced that to remain a Catholic would be a mortal sin, and that he must repudiate the Church and “get saved” trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Does he commit a sin? Only God can say. He does persist in error, but he does not know that it is error — he thinks he has finally found the truth, and that it would in fact be sinful for him not to follow his newfound religion. Or he becomes convinced that Judaism or Islam is the truth. Or what have you. Again, does he commit a sin? Or would he sin by not following his conscience? God knows his heart.

As the saying goes, that’s far above my pay grade. But it’s a far different animal than merely to say “I know the Church teaches this or that, but my conscience tells me there’s nothing wrong with doing what I think is right, regardless of what the Church has to say about it”.

 

[Dovekin]

God has willed that man remain “under the control of his own decisions,” so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end.
Gaudium et Spes 17

The Church’s teaching can certainly be “an apt help” but it cannot substitute for the personal appropriation of that teaching. This is not something new. It is visible in the struggles of Israel and in the debate over law and spirit in the NT. The transformation of humanity that began with Christ continues with us not by suppressing our interior life, but by augmenting it.

“I know the Church teaches this or that, but my conscience tells me (there’s nothing wrong with doing what I think) is right.” This a false choice. If your conscience tells you it is right, not only is there nothing wrong with doing it, there is something wrong with not doing it. This is the nature of the freedom God has given us.

‘I think the Church teaches something like this or that, but God tells me this is right.’ What is the right response in this situation? To follow your uncertain knowledge, or to act as God leads you?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

‘I think the Church teaches something like this or that, but God tells me this is right.’ What is the right response in this situation? To follow your uncertain knowledge, or to act as God leads you?

Then you look to the Church, and realize that what you think God is “telling you” is not the voice of God after all — the Church’s teaching is. Muhammad, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, and many others, all thought God was telling them something. We are warned in Scripture against false prophets. God does not change.

There is nothing more I can add to this discussion. Peace be unto you.

 

[Dovekin]

Then you look to the Church, and realize that what you think God is “telling you” is not the voice of God

“You realize” here describes the operation of conscience, which was my original point. These are fallacious scenarios that pit the Church against God and leave the individual out.

Thanks for the discussion. It is very helpful to me.

 

[Ender]

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.

Having autonomy and freedom makes us responsible for our choices and actions, and a clear conscience is no guarantee that our choices are right.

“…there can be no morality without freedom…God willed to leave man “in the power of his own counsel”, so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord” (Veritatis Splendor 34).*

If a person finds that his conscience directs him to commit an act the church condemns he has chosen to believe that God has revealed the truth to him but has left the church in error.

“The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” (VS 76)

This obligation is meaningless if one adds to it “except when they believe otherwise”.

 

[Dovekin]

The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” (VS 76)

This obligation is meaningless if one adds to it “ except when they believe otherwise ”.

“Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-à-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the correspondence of its decisions with the commands and prohibitions which are at the basis of human behaviour.”
VS 60, quoting Dominum et Vivificantem 43

There probably more pointed passages in VS, but all I have to say is that the moral law is written on our heart. One reason we listen to the Church is to learn about ourselves and our relationship with God. The fear of subjectivity seems to miss that.

 

[Ender]

There probably more pointed passages in VS, but all I have to say is that the moral law is written on our heart.

It seems you are suggesting that because the moral law is written on our hearts we cannot err in following it, but we know that is not the case because the church has explicitly said so.

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.

Again, choosing to follow ones conscience in opposition to clear church teaching on the matter surely seems make the individual culpable if his choice is wrong. The church has made that point as well.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.

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.

 

[Dovekin]

It seems you are suggesting that because the moral law is written on our hearts we cannot err in following it, but we know that is not the case because the church has explicitly said so.

Where do you get impressions like these? Did you only read VS 76, and ignore the paragraphs leading up to it?

VS 59 it is the obligation to do what the individual, through the workings of his conscience, knows to be a good he is called to do here and now.

Vs 60 the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it

VS 61 The truth about moral good, as that truth is declared in the law of reason, is practically and concretely recognized by the judgment of conscience, which leads one to take responsibility for the good or the evil one has done.

VS 63 it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives.

VS 64 the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith.

VS 65 It has been rightly pointed out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself and a setting of one’s own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God.

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.

VS 73 As Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes, Christ “forms us according to his image, in such a way that the traits of his divine nature shine forth in us through sanctification and justice and the life which is good and in conformity with virtue… The beauty of this image shines forth in us who are in Christ, when we show ourselves to be good in our works”

If I quote only what emphasizes the priority of conscience, it is because that is what was denied. It does not mean there are not lots of references to other issues. Until we get the main point established - that Conscience judges what is right or wrong - we cannot really examine the difficulties.

 

[Ender]

It seems you are suggesting that because the moral law is written on our hearts we cannot err in following it, but we know that is not the case because the church has explicitly said so.

The citations I used to support my position were from the catechism. Address what you think is incorrect or insufficient and explain why. As I cited: the conscience can make erroneous judgments, we may be held accountable for those errors, and one of the errors that can make us accountable is the “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience.” If I’ve misunderstood something, explain how.

 

[Dovekin]

If a person finds that his conscience directs him to commit an act the church condemns he has chosen to believe that God has revealed the truth to him but has left the church in error.

My first reaction to this remark was to think of St Joan of Arc. I think one of the English clerics prosecuting her said something like that, in one of the movies if not the trial transcript. The proper response is that Church teaching should be considered in conscience, not that conscience should be ignored, which is what was being discussed. (mentioned only because you asked me to explain your misunderstandings)

This obligation is meaningless if one adds to it “ except when they believe otherwise ”.

The same aituation applied here, you did not follow the prior discussion, so the implication in context is incorrect. Conscience should be formed as “the obligation” suggests, so your quote is not meaningless. Your comment is strange, since it disparages faith. You should act on what you believe, no?

choosing to follow ones conscience in opposition to clear church teaching on the matter surely seems make the individual culpable if his choice is wrong. The church has made that point as well.

The clarity of Church teaching is one issue here, but I am not going to address that now. Otherwise, this is an obvious statement. Sin exists. People make mistakes. Their culpability is indeed affected if they lack full knowledge and consent. What are you trying to address?

This discussion was about whether you should follow your conscience or defer to Church teaching. It wais an artificial situation, since it sets the two in opposition, when Church teaching is an “apt help” to conscience, not something independent of it. But since it can occur, the recourse should be to clarify church teaching so that the conscience does not disagree. If that fails, or it cannot be done, the Church teaches that we should follow our conscience, that is, we should consult God in our hearts, in an interior dialogue that may cast light on the moral order God has written within us.

 

[Ender]

This discussion was about whether you should follow your conscience or defer to Church teaching. It was an artificial situation, since it sets the two in opposition, when Church teaching is an “apt help” to conscience, not something independent of it. But since it can occur, the recourse should be to clarify church teaching so that the conscience does not disagree. If that fails, or it cannot be done, the Church teaches that we should follow our conscience, that is, we should consult God in our hearts, in an interior dialogue that may cast light on the moral order God has written within us.

Let’s see if we can simplify this by taking a realistic example. The church teaches that contraception is a grave evil. A large percentage of Catholics, however, appear to believe otherwise and act according to their conscience. Is there any reason to believe they will not be held accountable for that choice?

 

[Dovekin]

Idk, is there? I cannot think of any reason why they would not be rewarded for the good they do, and punished for the evil they do. Why do you think there is a question?

In discussing this as a hypothetical, you have already moved this outside the realm of conscience. Conscience is always about a particular person making a particular choice in particular circumstances. Maybe you can construct a scenario that accounts for all that, but your meager set up does not seem like enough.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Right, he’s just whining. After all, everyone reading knows that CAF NEVER deletes, removes, or suspends for arbitrary reasons.

 

[Ender]

Idk, is there? I cannot think of any reason why they would not be rewarded for the good they do, and punished for the evil they do. Why do you think there is a question?

I will assume this was directed to me. Of course we will receive retribution for the good or ill that we do. The question is, if contraception is evil as the church teaches, will a Catholic who rejects church teaching on this subject be held culpable for freely choosing to do evil, or will he be excused from punishment because he followed his conscience on the matter?

 

[Dovekin]

if contraception is evil as the church teaches, will a Catholic who rejects church teaching on this subject be held culpable for freely choosing to do evil, or will he be excused from punishment because he followed his conscience on the matter?

Only God knows.

That rephrasing does not really address the question I asked. What does “excused from punishment” have to do with “followed his conscience”? What is your answer to the question? I really do not see how to give a more helpful answer.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As a parent, we are responsible for building the formation of our child’s conscience.

Once that child is an adult, (barring intellectual disabilities, etc.) he/she is responsible to continue forming his/her conscience for the rest of their lives.

It is not a “formed and done” sort of thing, We are on a path to perfection, a path to sainthood, that means there is a lifetime of formation.

A malformed conscience is only an excuse up to a point. After that, we must stand as men and women and take responsibility.

 

[Ender]

Only God knows.

This is not what the church believes and teaches.

The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et ratio #7)

This is my point: either we believe what the church claims about herself, in which case we must accept what she teaches as true, or we we believe what she teaches is false, which renders her claims false and eliminates any reason to be Catholic.

That rephrasing does not really address the question I asked. What does “excused from punishment” have to do with “followed his conscience”? What is your answer to the question? I really do not see how to give a more helpful answer.

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.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

These things are for God to judge.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

Yes, conscience is a good thing and we should pay attention to it. But if we find that we are not in harmony with God, we have to stop and go the other way. How do we know this? Read, study, go to Mass.

The Bible says: There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs)

In other words, with the best intentions in the world, conscience may lead us astray. God is the “bottom line.”