If push comes to shove I choose conscience over Church teaching

[una_ecclesia]

Part of the discussion also involves certain moral questions where the Church actually has a rather nuanced position rather than something that is a simple “yes in all cases/ no in all cases”.

Hence she makes distinctions between killing and murder, between lying and avoiding telling the truth on something, etc.

The result is that people might have certain qualms of conscience against what they think the Church teaches, when it turns out that her teaching is far more realist than idealist. So when the OP brought up this sort of “being brutally honest” as something that would have been required by Church teaching, people told him that this was a misconstrual of what she actually taught.

 

[guanophore]

Deceit is not the same as lying.

This is certainly an interesting new twist.

The definition in the Catechism has the virtue of anchoring a lie in objective reality. To be properly termed a lie, a statement must fulfill two conditions: (a) It must be objectively false; (b) It must be spoken with the intention to deceive.

I have had occasion to correct people who have assumed things that were not true, and have not done so. I deliberately allowed them to continue to cling to a falsehood. How is this not participating in something that is objectively false, with the intention to deceive?

Yet, he starts the argument with him as the agent that determines what is moral theology

I don’t think so. Each of us is the agent of moral action.

This is why conscience is so important. We each will have to answer to God if we did what we believed was right at the time of the action.

When we make the determination that there are circumstances which diminish our culpability and we throw in “freedom of conscience” as the determining factor, are we not making ourselves into God (God is the Judge which we replace when we say “it’s not sin”)?

Maran atha!

How did the OP indicate that there were circumstances that diminished culpability?

God requires that we all act according to what truth has been revealed to us:

James 4:17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

If a man has a strong conviction about what is right for him to do, he must act in accordance with this, even if it is wrong. St.Paul was convinced the Christians were wrong, and he persecuted the Church. He did this in good faith, and believed he was acting according to God’s will. God corrected him, as God will correct anyone who acts according to conscience, but is misled.

 

[una_ecclesia]

I have had occasion to correct people who have assumed things that were not true, and have not done so. I deliberately allowed them to continue to cling to a falsehood. How is this not participating in something that is objectively false, with the intention to deceive?

Look back at the quote from the Catechism: “To be properly termed a lie, a statement must fulfill two conditions: a) it must be objectively false, b) it must be spoken with the intention to deceive”.

While you may have had b) (i.e. you were intending to deceive), it was not by an actual statement that you made. It would have been a lie if they you told them that objectively false thing which they resultantly believed. Because you did not say anything, you deceived (which may have been wrong in your occasion), but you did not lie.

 

[jcrichton]

then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery."

Yesterday, a muscular guy thought that he was acting in such life preservation stance when he attempted to forcefully unhinge the door that protected the driver from him; he argued that he had no money, so it seems that Aquinas supported his appropriation of the bus to supply his needs.

Would hurting the woman be an acceptable remedy to supplying for his own needs?

Would I, and the fellow that shadowed me, have acted unmercifully by stopping him from obtaining what was innately his?

Do you follow my barb?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[una_ecclesia]

You are bringing up examples that do not fit the necessary qualifications for “stealing” to be considered licit. You are also appealing to violent scenarios as a sort of emotional appeal. Based on your scenario, I do not have to at all conclude the he was acting lawfully… neither does Aquinas.

Do you disagree with Aquinas? on what grounds? His point necessitates the notion of the Universal Destination of goods, which was basically the content of the first paragraph in q7.

 

[jcrichton]

How did the OP indicate that there were circumstances that diminished culpability?

Perhaps I’m not reading him correctly:

“if push comes to shove I choose conscience over church teaching”

Don’t lie.” To live in a secular world, to survive in a secular world, you realise that bending “the truth” is necessary.

I respect Church teachings but I don’t see a need to follow them to the letter of the law all the time. The spirit of the law is more important too.

From the above I understood that he was claiming that his conscience is to be followed rather than the Teaching of the Church; that it is necessary to bend the truth as such things as “don’t lie” cannot be done (following the command to not lie is a non sequitur); there’s no need to follow that which hinders the spirit of law.

…but maybe its not about “freedom of conscience;” maybe he really meant what you say.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If a man has a strong conviction about what is right for him to do, he must act in accordance with this, even if it is wrong. St.Paul was convinced the Christians were wrong, and he persecuted the Church. He did this in good faith, and believed he was acting according to God’s will.

So Saul was inculpable?

Wow, he did make a big to do about this issue though, didn’t he? …going to the point of calling himself the lesser of the Apostles–an abortion… how wrong he was; he was just acting according to the “freedom of his conscience.”

God corrected him, as God will correct anyone who acts according to conscience, but is misled.

…so thirty thousand denominations (and counting) must be right since God has not corrected their “freedom of conscience” choice.

Sorry, it’s late and I cannot see how you are able to reconcile these things into such clean-cut-just-so packaging.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Do you disagree with Aquinas? on what grounds? His point necessitates the notion of the Universal Destination of goods, which was basically the content of the first paragraph in q7.

The problem with it is that those who own the property/goods would not consider someone else’s needs as the grantor of ownership; rather, they would believe that it would be within their rights to kill the person attempting the theft/stealing.

Basically what this argument offers is; share your goodies or I’ll be in my rights to appropriate them, as mine own.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

From the above I understood that he was claiming that his conscience is to be followed rather than the Teaching of the Church;

From reading the thread, it seems to be more of a case of choosing one’s conscientious understanding of the spirit of the law over a rigid letter of the law approach.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

It’s happened to at least one McDonald’s.

 

[una_ecclesia]

The problem with it is that those who own the property/goods would not consider someone else’s needs as the grantor of ownership; rather, they would believe that it would be within their rights to kill the person attempting the theft/stealing.

I’ll be brief, and this honestly will be my last post, since I need to get to bed, but

1. The context of what “goodies” qualify are not what the owner needs, but his surplus, and it’s what the one in need actually needs for actual survival, not what he wants.
2. This assumes the owner is actually right in holding what he does. But again, our ownership over property is not absolute. There are obligations attached to it. If someone has a surplus but is not willing to let go of it for the sake of the poor who actually need it, he is himself acting contrary to the Gospel.
3. The one in need can only take what he needs, and under a last resort, and no more.

Based on the above, the following statement

Basically what this argument offers is; share your goodies or I’ll be in my rights to appropriate them, as mine own.

does not at all seem to be what Aquinas or I am saying.

Anyway,

Maranatha!

Mary

 

[guanophore]

So Saul was inculpable?

How did evaluating culpability get into it?

Wow, he did make a big to do about this issue though, didn’t he? …going to the point of calling himself the lesser of the Apostles–an abortion… how wrong he was; he was just acting according to the “freedom of his conscience.”

Wow, he did make a big to do about this issue though, didn’t he? …going to the point of calling himself the lesser of the Apostles–an abortion… how wrong he was; he was just acting according to the “freedom of his conscience.”

Actually, Paul never stated he was acting according to his conscience. He said he was acting “according to the law” - or at least his understanding of it. The point is that God corrected Him, as God will do for all those who do what they believe is right and are mistaken.

Sorry, it’s late and I cannot see how you are able to reconcile these things into such clean-cut-just-so packaging.

I don’t believe it is clean cut, which I think was the main point of the OP. People do the best they can with what they have. God meets us where we are and brings us into the obedience of faith, so long as we desire it.

“Love and do what you will.”
Augustine (354-430). A sermon on love.

 

[jcrichton]

But what is that “rigid letter of the law?”

Who determines what is the rigid letter of the law?

Christ said that Marriage is indissoluble; His Disciples soon chimed in, ‘hey, if a man cannot get rid of his wife it is better not to get married.’ (paraphrased)

So when someone want to claim Christ and divorce and remarriage and the Church says it is not possible to do so, what (and who determines) is the rigid letter of the law?

When someone says it is unmerciful and unjust to not allow homosexuals to receive the Holy Eucharist because the Church is simply applying a rigid letter of the law, should clerics and lay Catholics not move to force the Vatican to stop being so rigid with their laws? (please understand my intent)

My conscience cannot dictate what it is that God actually meant through Revelation (Oral and Written Traditions); I must submit to the Church Definition as it is Jesus Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit Who Guide the Church and Unfold the Fullness of Truth.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Greenfields]

Kathleen18:

We just need to keep this discussion as friendly as possible.

Like the post that suggests I’m an attention-seeking old man who needs to have an affair with a widow?

To the OPs credit,he does have a wife/partner as stated in his earlier Threads.But yes,this is irrelevant to the discussion .
@goodcatholic may I ask do you disagree with any of the churches teachings? And if so which ones apart from the instant of not telling the truth in the situation you described?
God bless.

 

[guanophore]

But what is that “rigid letter of the law?”

Who determines what is the rigid letter of the law?

I think the whole point of the thread was to say that one must follow one’s conscience in determining that.

Most people who have responded to this thread seem to believe it is their determination to make for themselves, as well as everyone else!

So when someone want to claim Christ and divorce and remarriage and the Church says it is not possible to do so, what (and who determines) is the rigid letter of the law?

The annulment tribunal.

When someone says it is unmerciful and unjust to not allow homosexuals to receive the Holy Eucharist because the Church is simply applying a rigid letter of the law

What “law” would that be exactly? The Church teaches that SSA is not a sin, so why would someone suffering from it, living a chaste life, not be free to receive the Eucharist?

My conscience cannot dictate what it is that God actually meant through Revelation (Oral and Written Traditions);

No, but your conscience must discern what He meant, and how it pertains to you.

I must submit to the Church Definition as it is Jesus Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit Who Guide the Church and Unfold the Fullness of Truth.

Indeed. And if the example you just gave above is any indication, we clearly understand that differently. Everything is not as cut and dried as you seem to think.

 

[hope]

I was taught in school that it was not stealing to take food when in need.

Is stealing in this instance O.K.

Dear Father, On the topic of whether it is OK for a poor woman who has no nothing to eat to steal food, a certain priest gave this advice: A mother who “steals” bread to feed her starving child is not stealing. She is taking what is rightfully hers, assuming that there is no other way of feeding her child and assuming that no one has sought to assist her. This is based on the fact that there is no such thing in this world as the absolute ownership of anything. God is the landlord. We are the tenants. If no one has sought to help that mother, then the real issue is that someone has stolen the food that rightfully belongs to her". Father Levis, aren’t we all called to remain faithful to God’s commandments no matter how big our cross in life may be? If there is no such thing as absolute ownership, then it would be ok to steal anything else since people don’t own anything but must share. What about putting our trust in God? Stealing is stealing no matter what the reason. If people fail to feed this woman, then that is their sin that they have to answer to God about. But just because they are sinning in not being charitable, does it make it OK for a woman to break one of God’s commandments? If this poor woman’s stealing is not a mortal sin (due to her situation) but is it at least a venial sin?

Dear Fabiana, Your priest is correct. Taking what belongs to another to preserve one’s own life or that of children is not stealing. Stealing is defined as taking what belongs to another. But in the circumstances you describe here, where life and death are at issue, taking the food necessary to maintain life is perfectly moral. Here, the ownership of the food passes to those whose life is in the balance. So it is the common judgment of the Church that such is no sin at all. Fr.Bob Levis

 

[Cruciferi]

And this is construed as honesty? How are these things not a deliberate attempt to deceive?

Saying nothing isn’t lying. Not revealing everything isn’t lying. Not being explicit isn’t lying.

 

[goodcatholic]

Well, @goodcatholic, you have uncovered quite a nesting site of fundamentalists.

they’re probably nice people IRL. But I want to stay away from literal interpretations of everything in the CCC. I repeat It’s more a map rather than a rule book.
It s funny too. Once you hint that not all truths are objective, you get pigeon-holed as some radical liberal or relativist who wants to bend genders for example. I strongly dislike where the radical left are coming from now. But I’m not a fan of authoritarian ultra conservative oversimplifications either.

 

[goodcatholic]

may I ask do you disagree with any of the churches teachings? And if so which ones apart from the instant of not telling the truth in the situation you described?

I’ll get back to you on that. examples do help I agree.I did mention stealing on this thread as well. Stealing food if you are really hungry.
If I give some off the cuff examples here, I’m likely to be devoured by some of the PC police who need to slap my wrist for anything remotely individualistic.

 

[Cruciferi]

If I give some off the cuff examples here, I’m likely to be devoured by some of the PC police who need to slap my wrist for anything remotely individualistic.

If you’re not looking for discussion or feedback, I suggest that you start a blog.