Is going against a malformed conscience a sin?

[Bookcat]

this will help:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=109

and

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8063&CFID=64730434&CFTOKEN=5607556

and

I add this …cause it is a great homily on the renewal of our mind!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7446633&postcount=312

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…e.g. I know killing my child is evil, but if I don’t, someone will kill my entire family…

This is not a reasonable example for several reasons. I will assume that whether or not your conscience is well-formed, you still have the power of reasoning, otherwise any discussion of a catch 22 is meaningless. So if you have reason, then what sort of situation would convince you that the stated dichotomy is true? Is it just because a “bad guy” holding a gun says so? Then I have to wonder why you believe the bad guy. He may very well be lying. Perhaps he does not have the power to kill your entire family as he claims. Perhaps he will kill your entire family whether or not you kill your child. And how are you supposed to kill your child? With a gun? Then if you have a gun in your hand why not kill the bad guy instead? Or, what about stalling for time? Perhaps something will turn up? Maybe the bad guy will suffer a heart attack before he has a chance to kill your entire family. Maybe the police will arrive just in time. What about engaging the bad guy in conversation, hoping to dissuade him (assuming you can’t shoot him)? Or, at the very worst, how about wounding your child so that he will recover, but it will look like you killed him to the bad guy?

You see, there are so many unknowns that it is still hard to imagine a scenario that truly presents the dichotomy that you state.

 

[shocktrooper]

This is not a reasonable example for several reasons. I will assume that whether or not your conscience is well-formed, you still have the power of reasoning, otherwise any discussion of a catch 22 is meaningless. So if you have reason, then what sort of situation would convince you that the stated dichotomy is true? Is it just because a “bad guy” holding a gun says so? Then I have to wonder why you believe the bad guy. He may very well be lying. Perhaps he does not have the power to kill your entire family as he claims. Perhaps he will kill your entire family whether or not you kill your child. And how are you supposed to kill your child? With a gun? Then if you have a gun in your hand why not kill the bad guy instead? Or, what about stalling for time? Perhaps something will turn up? Maybe the bad guy will suffer a heart attack before he has a chance to kill your entire family. Maybe the police will arrive just in time. What about engaging the bad guy in conversation, hoping to dissuade him (assuming you can’t shoot him)? Or, at the very worst, how about wounding your child so that he will recover, but it will look like you killed him to the bad guy?

You see, there are so many unknowns that it is still hard to imagine a scenario that truly presents the dichotomy that you state.

I gave you the scenario, you added all the dichotomy. I am speaking in objective terms.

Again, can a person condemn himself by not going along with a malformed conscience? The question is very simple. Yes or No? And if the answer is “yes”, then how is he saved if the act his malformed conscience made him do is mortal? This is the catch 22. Natural laws are written on the hearts of men, so we can’t always play the invincible ignorance card.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I gave you the scenario, you added all the dichotomy. I am speaking in objective terms.

Again, can a person condemn himself by not going along with a malformed conscience? The question is very simple. Yes or No? And if the answer is “yes”, then how is he saved if the act his malformed conscience made him do is mortal? This is the catch 22. Natural laws are written on the hearts of men, so we can’t always play the invincible ignorance card.

The question may sound simple, but until you give a detailed example, it is just too abstract and potentially non-realizable. It is like asking about the morality of having two heads. What difference does the answer make if I will always have only one head?

 

[Bookcat]

Again…Lets take the one line header question.

Is going against a malformed conscience a sin?

Maybe… The answer can be “yes” or “no”

As the CCC notes it can be “Yes”:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

It also notes that one can be responsible for ones error…which one can be culpable for.
Or one can have “invincible ignorance” which can be without any sin (though the act itself remains disordered…and is not good for one or good in itself).

But what if one knows ones judgment is incorrect…well one must seek to correct it!

(and of course one must seek to always have a well formed conscience)

What if to take another difficulty some suffer from in these forums …one who is scrupulous or has some active tendency in that direction? Will it be sinful to go against that “malformed conscience”??? Actually one is to work with a regular confessor and do precisely that…go against …act against the scruples. Forming ones actual conscience via the direction of ones confessor etc …and acting against what appears at times to be ones conscience but rather is numerous fears masquerading as conscience. And basically the person in this boat “knows” that this is the case via his confessor and past experience etc. Ordinarily one will follow ones GPS but if one finds out that it has faulty directions in it…one is going to seek out other directions…

 

[shocktrooper]

Again…Lets take the one line header question.

Is going against a malformed conscience a sin?

Maybe… The answer can be “yes” or “no”

As the CCC notes it can be “Yes”:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

It also notes that one can be responsible for ones error…which one can be culpable for.
Or one can have “invincible ignorance” which can be without any sin (though the act itself remains disordered…and is not good for one or good in itself).

But what if one knows ones judgment is incorrect…well one must seek to correct it!

(and of course one must seek to always have a well formed conscience)

What if to take another difficulty some suffer from in these forums …one who is scrupulous or has some active tendency in that direction? Will it be sinful to go against that “malformed conscience”??? Actually one is to work with a regular confessor and do precisely that…go against …act against the scruples. Forming ones actual conscience via the direction of ones confessor etc …and acting against what appears at times to be ones conscience but rather is numerous fears masquerading as conscience. And basically the person in this boat “knows” that this is the case via his confessor and past experience etc. Ordinarily one will follow ones GPS but if one finds out that it has faulty directions in it…one is going to seek out other directions…

Bookcat,

My question has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. I know what invincible ignorance is. My question is very simple. Let’s try this again.

Here is the situation. I am a 33 year old man. I have formed my conscience in a way contrary to God. My conscience tells me that ACTIVELY living as a homosexual is not a sin against nature. I live my life according to my malformed conscience and not to the dictates of God and the natural law. I have gotten to this point on my own accord and via my own free will. I know what the Church teaches but I choose to ignore it because my conscience has no problem with my life style. END OF SCENARIO.

Ok, now this is not a real situation for me at least. But anyway, would this person above condemn himself if he chose to go against his conscience, one that he malformed willfully against God? If not, then how is he not in a “catch 22” situation.

Thanks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Here is the situation. I am a 33 year old man. I have formed my conscience in a way contrary to God. My conscience tells me that ACTIVELY living as a homosexual is not a sin against nature. I live my life according to my malformed conscience and not to the dictates of God and the natural law. I have gotten to this point on my own accord and via my own free will. I know what the Church teaches but I choose to ignore it because my conscience has no problem with my life style. END OF SCENARIO…

In this case the conscience says that one may actively live one’s life as a homosexual. The conscience does not say that one must live in that manner. So the conscience does not demand a certain action that the Church teaches is wrong. The conscience only allows it. Therefore living according to Church teaching does not disobey one’s conscience. Therefore this is not a catch 22.

A better example might be where Church law demands that you hunt down and kill homosexuals on sight, and your conscience tells you that is wrong. That would be a catch 22. But thankfully there is no such Church law.

I know I have not directly answered your initial question. I am merely questioning the relevance of it.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

My question has nothing to do with invincible ignorance. I know what invincible ignorance is. My question is very simple. Let’s try this again.

Here is the situation. I am a 33 year old man. I have formed my conscience in a way contrary to God. My conscience tells me that ACTIVELY living as a homosexual is not a sin against nature. I live my life according to my malformed conscience and not to the dictates of God and the natural law. I have gotten to this point on my own accord and via my own free will. I know what the Church teaches but I choose to ignore it because my conscience has no problem with my life style. END OF SCENARIO.

Ok, now this is not a real situation for me at least. But anyway, would this person above condemn himself if he chose to go against his conscience, one that he malformed willfully against God? If not, then how is he not in a “catch 22” situation.

Thanks.

1. A person can be morally culpable for his malformed conscience.
2. A person can “deaden” his conscience via sin etc. …read the sources of error noted in the section of the CCC. Also the parts where a person can be responsible for his error.
3. Is he a Catholic? If so then part of his very conscience is the belief in the authority of the Church…part of his very conscience is that he is to follow the teachings of Christ…the teachings of the Church… if he chooses to do otherwise he is choosing against his conscience…or at least he is divided against himself. For he professes to be a Catholic.
4. Could it perhaps happen that a person is following his certain conscience that tells him (him not knowing it is in error!..that is an important factor…if he knows it is…then it is not certain) here and now I must act in a homosexual manner or I will sin before God…maybe such could happen…but such would be difficult for one to judge unless one is God.
5. Creating scenarios which only God can sort out —are just that.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, can a person condemn himself by not going along with a malformed conscience? The question is very simple. Yes or No?

Yes

CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

And if the answer is “yes”, then how is he saved if the act his malformed conscience made him do is mortal? This is the catch 22. Natural laws are written on the hearts of men, so we can’t always play the invincible ignorance card.

Jesus Christ (if anyone is saved it is by him…so if in the end he is saved…it is by him) (I know you know this …just adding it though for some readers my think we are saying it is only a matter of doing good and avoiding evil…)

And for a mortal sin one needs not only grave matter but full knowledge…which he would lack here…and if a persons “certain judgment of conscience” is saying he must do something or he will sin…well the person would doing what he holds he must do to avoid sin…(not doing something he knows is sinful)

yes…here is natural moral law…

But remember as the compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (approved by Pope Benedict XVI) notes:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

1. A person can be morally culpable for his malformed conscience.

This has nothing to do with my question but yes, I agree.

1. A person can “deaden” his conscience via sin etc. …read the sources of error noted in the section of the CCC. Also the parts where a person can be responsible for his error.

The natural law holds everyone responsible since it is written on their heart. Nothing can mitigate that fact.

1. Is he a Catholic? If so then part of his very conscience is the belief in the authority of the Church…part of his very conscience is that he is to follow the teachings of Christ…the teachings of the Church… if he chooses to do otherwise he is choosing against his conscience…or at least he is divided against himself. For he professes to be a Catholic.

Yes, he is Catholic, but has malformed his conscience after the fact. So now his conscience has no problem with the sin mentioned.

1. Could it perhaps happen that a person is following his certain conscience that tells him (him not knowing it is in error!..that is an important factor…if he knows it is…then it is not certain) here and now I must act in a homosexual manner or I will sin before God…maybe such could happen…but such would be difficult for one to judge unless one is God.

So a Catholic, or any person, with a once properly formed conscience (which is all of us) must always follow that well formed conscience and not the malformed one that we created later in life. This is the point I have been trying to make. It is impossible for someone to condemn themselves by following a malformed conscience that they willfully created.

1. Creating scenarios which only God can sort out —are just that.

We can still ask questions and speculate. We can even do better by going by what the Church teaches sometimes.

Can someone other than 1ke give me a direct answer?

Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, can a person condemn himself by not going along with a malformed conscience? The question is very simple. Yes or No?

Yes

CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

And if the answer is “yes”, then how is he saved if the act his malformed conscience made him do is mortal? This is the catch 22. Natural laws are written on the hearts of men, so we can’t always play the invincible ignorance card.

Jesus Christ (if anyone is saved it is by him…so if in the end he is saved…it is by him) (I know you know this …just adding it though for some readers my think we are saying it is only a matter of doing good and avoiding evil…)

And for a mortal sin one needs not only grave matter but full knowledge…which he would lack here…and if a persons “certain judgment of conscience” is saying he must do something or he will sin…well the person would doing what he holds he must do to avoid sin…(not doing something he knows is sinful)

yes…there is natural moral law…

But remember as the compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (approved by Pope Benedict XVI) notes:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

The natural law holds everyone responsible since it is written on their heart. Nothing can mitigate that fact.

see last post on the Church’s teaching …

So a Catholic, or any person, with a once properly formed conscience (which is all of us) must always follow that well formed conscience and not the malformed one that we created later in life. This is the point I have been trying to make. It is impossible for someone to condemn themselves by following a malformed conscience that they willfully created.

We are all to seek to form our consciences…and yes Catholics are to live as Catholics…is it possible for them too to be in error in a certain judgment of conscience and not sin? Yes it is. Are we obliged to correct a malformed conscience…yes very much so

We can still ask questions and speculate. We can even do better by going by what the Church teaches sometimes.

My question still needs to be answered. Can someone other than 1ke give me a direct answer?

I have… see last post

Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, can a person condemn himself by not going along with a malformed conscience? The question is very simple. Yes or No?

Yes

CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

And if the answer is “yes”, then how is he saved if the act his malformed conscience made him do is mortal? This is the catch 22. Natural laws are written on the hearts of men, so we can’t always play the invincible ignorance card.

Jesus Christ (if anyone is saved it is by him…so if in the end he is saved…it is by him) (I know you know this …just adding it though for some readers my think we are saying it is only a matter of doing good and avoiding evil…)

And for a mortal sin one needs not only grave matter but full knowledge…which he would lack here…and if a persons “certain judgment of conscience” is saying he must do something or he will sin…well the person would be doing what he holds he must do to avoid sin…(not doing something he knows is sinful)

yes…there is natural moral law…

But remember as the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (approved by Pope Benedict XVI) notes:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

**417. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.
**

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[shocktrooper]

Yes

CCC: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

Jesus Christ (if anyone is saved it is by him…so if in the end he is saved…it is by him) (I know you know this …just adding it though for some readers my think we are saying it is only a matter of doing good and avoiding evil…)

And for a mortal sin one needs not only grave matter but full knowledge…which he would lack here…and if a persons “certain judgment of conscience” is saying he must do something or he will sin…well the person would doing what he holds he must do to avoid sin…(not doing something he knows is sinful)

yes…there is natural moral law…

But remember as the compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (approved by Pope Benedict XVI) notes:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Good answers, Bookcat. Thanks. Keep in mind though that my question has nothing to do with someone growing up in an environment where his conscience was malformed by external forces. I am speaking about a person that has willfully, purposely, REJECTED the teachings of the Church and God. I just can’t see how they should obey the malformed conscience they formed to keep from condemning themselves. They are already condemned. You can throw someone in prison when they are already in it. Any thoughts on that? It seems like you are focusing more on those that may or may not be culpable because of some situation in their life that not all of us have or may be aware of.

God bless.

 

[Bookcat]

Good answers, Bookcat. Thanks. Keep in mind though that my question has nothing to do with someone growing up in an environment where his conscience was malformed by external forces. I am speaking about a person that has willfully, purposely, REJECTED the teachings of the Church and God. I just can’t see how they should obey the malformed conscience they formed to keep from condemning themselves. They are already condemned. You can throw someone in prison when they are already in it. Any thoughts on that? It seems like you are focusing more on those that may or may not be culpable because of some situation in their life that not all of us have or may be aware of.

God bless.

Everyone is in some “situation of life”. Thats part of our life here.

The Church here does not mean just some extraordinary circumstances.

But to add other questions…

“Can” a person have a malformed conscience and be morally responsible for that malformation? Yes.

“Can” a person condemn himself by rejecting God and the teachings of the Church? Yes.

These are true principles…

Now as to the person you just mentioned:

A person who willfully is rejecting God is well…willfully rejecting God. On what grounds is he “following his conscience” in doing so??

A person who rejects God can not say “If I do not reject God I will sin against God” can he?

God will judge in the end.

 

[shocktrooper]

Now as to the person you just mentioned:

A person who willfully is rejecting God is well…willfully rejecting God. On what grounds is he “following his conscience” in doing so??

This is my point of it all. He has no grounds if he goes against his conscience because he already has condemned himself by turning from God. If one goes against his conscience when it is already malformed, then he is condemned because of the state of sin, not because he violated his conscience.

A person who rejects God can not say “If I do not reject God I will sin against God” can he?

No he can’t, which means he can’t condemn himself if he is already condemned by his actions. But a person that accepts God’s law can say “if I accept God and go against my well formed conscience, then I sin against God and myself and thus condemn myself”. A person that rejects God can not say “if I reject God and violate my malformed conscience, then I condemn myself because I don’t follow my malformed conscience by doing something good when my conscience is telling me to do something bad”. Just the opposite, if he rejects God and has a malformed conscience by his own making then he is condemned for his actions and not for going against his conscience. There is a very fine line here that I am trying to get at.

This may be hard to discuss via blogs. I will admit that it can get confusing.

God will judge in the end.

Thank God, because I would screw it up big time.

 

[Bookcat]

Without parsing all the above…

People can say lots of things…but just cause someone says “I am following my conscience” does not mean that they are …or that they are without guilt etc.

and of course a person who says he is following his conscience against what he knows is the will of God…well that person is in a very confused state…and perhaps there are present various factors that point to lack of ability to judge at all…

Again God lovingly and truthfully sees us as we are…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So far I have not seen anyone address the issue I raised in post #27 and earlier, namely that the title question of this thread is irrelevant. Until someone presents an actual potential instance of a malformed conscience demanding action that the Church teaches is a sin, then I fail to see the relevance of the question.

The item in the Catechism that has been cited as the basis of this question was not meant to address this question at all. It was meant to address the situation where a person’s certain conscience goes beyond Church teaching and tells him that something is evil which the Church does not. For example, suppose I honestly believed that smoking was a mortal sin. The Church does not teach this, so in a sense, my conscience is malformed. And if I were to really believe this, and then purposely begin smoking, then I would fall under that particular item in the Catechism and it would be sin for me.

But what sort of perverse conscience could there be where my conscience actually requires me to do something that the Church teaches is wrong? Until someone can come up with that scenario, then the question of this thread remains meaningless.

 

[Bookcat]

The item in the Catechism that has been cited as the basis of this question was not meant to address this question at all. It was meant to address the situation where a person’s certain conscience goes beyond Church teaching and tells him that something is evil which the Church does not.

Yes it does in fact address the question at hand.

The article addresses an erroneous certain judgment of conscience in general… it does not further qualify it.

It is not just addressing what goes beyond the teachings per se of the Church…

Though of course as it states elsewhere Catholics are to *form *their consciences …we are to live according to the teachings of the Church…to live as disciples of Christ

 

[Bookcat]

But what sort of perverse conscience could there be where my conscience actually requires me to do something that the Church teaches is wrong? Until someone can come up with that scenario, then the question of this thread remains meaningless.

Every example would very likely be clearly seen by us who have well formed consciences at quite obvious…but this would not take away from the possibility that the Church in fact sees here. Also one must note too that it is again in general…the persons referred to are any human persons…not only Christians.

(Again Catholic Christians are to live the teachings of the Church…to form their consciences …live the Faith…and of course we propose the truth to others as well…)