Is going against a malformed conscience a sin?

[shocktrooper]

I know you asked Bookcat, but if I may add my opinion?

To me, in this scenario, no one is forcing her to act contrary to a well-formed conscience. If we presume she knows that ABC is immoral, then how, in this scenario, is someone pressuring her to act contrary to it? What’s she’s using as an excuse for that pressure is a subjective opinion based on little else than some questionable logic of a 25% chance that the next child she might have would die of starvation at some point in its childhood. To me, that doesn’t exculpate her from knowing and choosing the objectively good choice (to not use ABC).

The only gray area in this scenario is the husband’s irrational demand for sex without due concern for mutual consent from the wife. That’s a separate problem. The wife’s conscience is improperly formed if she is “convinced” that ABC is the proper choice.

Peace.

I agree, SteveGC. My question pertains to her going against a malformed conscience by not using ABC, thus actually doing something good rather than the bad that her conscience was telling her.

If she decides not use ABC because she does not like the side effects, would she be “condemning hersself” by not acting in accordance with her conscience, which is telling her she must to prevent the death of another child?

Peace.

 

[shocktrooper]

The wife’s conscience is improperly formed if she is “convinced” that ABC is the proper choice.

Peace.

Irregardless of this condition, would she “condemn herself” if she acted contrary to her malformed conscience, by doing something good?

Again, my position is that she would not condemn herself, but save herself. Am I wrong?

 

[sacredcello]

Irregardless of this condition, would she “condemn herself” if she acted contrary to her malformed conscience, by doing something good?

Again, my position is that she would not condemn herself, but save herself. Am I wrong?

Did Christ condemn himself for going obediently to the Cross, according to the Perfect Will of his Father? As a result of the saving grace of Our Lord’s resurrection, we have been set free by his suffering, death and resurrection. As a result, we can know truth and how to live as his disciples, according to His Bride, the Church. And, we are obligated to inform our consciences.We condemn ourselves when we commit immoral acts. Suffering is redemptive and has meaning. We unite our suffering to Cross, including the suffering that we experience when our own children suffer.

If a person has knowledge of the sinfulness of ABC, then they can never “save” themselves by committing evil.

 

[shocktrooper]

If a person has knowledge of the sinfulness of ABC, then they can never “save” themselves by committing evil.

I did not say this. My point for this whole thread/question was to discern the saying that I hear people say about having to “follow your conscience or you condemn yourself”. I see this statement true only if the conscience is properly formed, and then you act against it to do something knowingly bad.

I see the statement false if the conscience is malformed, and then you act against it to do something good.

My statement about saving one’s self was only in reference to a person that has a malformed conscience but acts against it by not doing the bad act. I only used the term to counter the extreme word of “condemn”. I don’t mean they actual “save” themselves.

What are your thoughts?

Pax Christi.

 

[Corki]

The question though isn’t whether or not the conscience is malformed, but whether or not one is obligated to follow it. If NOT using ABC would violate his person’s conscience to the very core, what is she to do?

Your scenario wasn’t really about following a malformed conscience, however. In your scenario, the women is deciding whether her circumstances are dire enough to reduce her culpabilty to do something she knows is a sin. Her conscience is not telling her that her actions aren’t sinful.

Actually, I am a Catholic and I had to say that in this situation, not using birth control would totally violate my conscience, no matter what the church says. If I did not use it despite being basically raped by my husband and conceiving children that I felt certain would die a horrible death, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life. No matter how I tried to reconcile my conscience with Church teaching here, I don’t think I could do it.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. The woman has other choices, including throwing her husband out of the house, moving in with family, refusing to have sex with him, fostering out some of her children, etc. If she is indeed being raped, she has a duty to protect herself and her children by separating them from this man. She has no duty to sin.

Ok, this is really for Bookcat. IF LaSainte’s conscience is really telling her to use ABC, then would she condemn herself by not following her conscience even though it has been malformed or formed against God, whether she knows it or not.

Would she condemn herself if she went against her conscience and did not use ABC?

My position is that she would not condemn herself, but save herself.

Thanks.

She would not be going against her conscience. She would be substituting an action based on her judgement for an action based on her conscience.

She may actually have reduced culpability due to the dire circumstances but that doesn’t save her. She may be saved from mortal sin in spite of her action, not because of it.

 

[shocktrooper]

She would not be going against her conscience. She would be substituting an action based on her judgement for an action based on her conscience.

She may actually have reduced culpability due to the dire circumstances but that doesn’t save her. She may be saved from mortal sin in spite of her action, not because of it.

But the action based on her judgement was selfish and had nothing to do with not wanting to do the evil act. One devil overcame the other. The conscience was not followed, thus she acted contrary to it. Did she condemn herself by not following her malformed conscience?

And I don’t mean she actually “saved” herself. I do mean what you speak of here.

Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

QUOTE=shocktrooper;8061679]Ok, this is really for Bookcat. IF LaSainte’s conscience is really telling her to use ABC, then would she condemn herself by not following her conscience even though it has been malformed or formed against God, whether she knows it or not.

Would she condemn herself if she went against her conscience and did not use ABC?

My position is that she would not condemn herself, but save herself.

Thanks.

Seeing how this is a speculative question and not actually a practical here and now judgment (I am pretty sure she is not in Africa etc…at the moment) this is all moot. For the certain judgment of conscience is an act that happens in the hic et nunc…the here and now…when actually confronted with the judgment to make in fact. So it is really not a certain practical judgment of conscience as I would think the Church means it there in the CCC (see works of moral theology).

More would have to be said…but

…I got to run…wife is calling me to leave again …

but I had time to add this aspect…hope it helps…

 

[shocktrooper]

Seeing how this is a speculative question and not actually a practical here and now judgment (I am pretty sure she is not in Africa etc…at the moment) this is all moot. For the certain judgment of conscience is an act that happens in the hic et nunc…the here and now…when actually confronted with the judgment to make in fact. So it is really not a certain practical judgment of conscience as I would think the Church means it there in the CCC (see works of moral theology).

but I had time to add this aspect…hope it helps…

I am sorry, Bookcat. I do not understand. Again, sorry.

Can there ever be a case when a person “condemns himself” or “sins” by willfully NOT acting in accordance with his malformed conscience?

I know he can condemn himself if he willfully does not act in accordance with a well formed conscience.

I just don’t see how it is possible for someone to condemn themselves when they willfully act contrary to their own willfully formed malformed conscience, for one reason or another, or any reason at all.

It is almost as if you guys are saying that a person will not condemn himself if he willfully follows his willfully formed malformed conscience. How is this possible? Give me an example of this possibility, please.

Thanks.

 

[Corki]

I am sorry, Bookcat. I do not understand. Again, sorry.

Can there ever be a case when a person “condemns himself” or “sins” by willfully NOT acting in accordance with his malformed conscience?

I know he can condemn himself if he willfully does not act in accordance with a well formed conscience.

I just don’t see how it is possible for someone to condemn themselves when they willfully act contrary to their own willfully formed malformed conscience, for one reason or another, or any reason at all.

It is almost as if you guys are saying that a person will not condemn himself if he willfully follows his willfully formed malformed conscience. How is this possible? Give me an example of this possibility, please.

Thanks.

The person has a duty to form his/her conscience as well as possible. If a person has a malformed conscience through no fault of his own, he is bound to follow his conscience even if it leads him to do something that would otherwise be sinful. Frankly, in this day and age of instant gratification for any informational need and so much published, it is very hard to imagine someone who has an innocently malformed conscience. If a person willfully malforms his conscience, he is no more bound to it than to any other judgement.

Extreme hypothetical example: a baptized Catholic is brought up in a country where polygamy is not only legal but encouraged. He is taught this in school and at home. His conscience tells him that polygamy is a moral choice. He has no access to the Catechism or other documents to use to confirm or refute his beliefs. He would be acting according to his malformed conscience to enter a polygamous marriage. However, if he did not follow his conscience and remained single or monogamous, he wouldn’t be sinning.

The problem with what you ask is that acting against a malformed conscience usually means that one acts morally or neutrally so although the intent and knowledge of the conditions for sin may be met, the act would not be grave matter.

 

[LaSainte]

Also, please understand that just because someone knows that the church teaches that ABC is illicit, when confronted with an extreme situation such as this, one might truly and honestly believe the church to be in error.

This woman (like many in that part of the world) has no choice about whether or not to have sex or use NFP. the only thing she can control is whether or not she conceives as a result of what is essentially rape. If she is fairly certain that any child conceived would die and thatshe must do everything in her power to stop it, that the church is absolutely wrong in its requirements here, then it’s not as if she KNOWS what she is doing is wrong; quite the opposite. She knows what she is doing is right, and that the church in this case is wrong. How can she not follow her conscience when a life hangs in the balance?

 

[Corki]

Also, please understand that just because someone knows that the church teaches that ABC is illicit, when confronted with an extreme situation such as this, one might truly and honestly believe the church to be in error.

Believing the Church to be in error and having a malformed conscience are not the same thing. Extreme situations may mitigate culpabilty but they don’t change immoral acts into moral ones.

If a Catholic person truly believes the Church is wrong in one of her teachings and then willfully acts in a manner contrary to the teaching of the Church, she has still sinned since she owes obedience and assent to the Church and her teachings.

 

[shocktrooper]

The person has a duty to form his/her conscience as well as possible. If a person has a malformed conscience through no fault of his own, he is bound to follow his conscience even if it leads him to do something that would otherwise be sinful.

Correct, but he would not be sinning if he chose not to, as you agree below.

Frankly, in this day and age of instant gratification for any informational need and so much published, it is very hard to imagine someone who has an innocently malformed conscience. If a person willfully malforms his conscience, he is no more bound to it than to any other judgement.

Agree!

Extreme hypothetical example: a baptized Catholic is brought up in a country where polygamy is not only legal but encouraged. He is taught this in school and at home. His conscience tells him that polygamy is a moral choice. He has no access to the Catechism or other documents to use to confirm or refute his beliefs. He would be acting according to his malformed conscience to enter a polygamous marriage. However, if he did not follow his conscience and remained single or monogamous, he wouldn’t be sinning.

This is the point I have been trying to make. This is the distinction I have been trying to highlight, though poorly.

The problem with what you ask is that acting against a malformed conscience usually means that one acts morally or neutrally so although the intent and knowledge of the conditions for sin may be met, the act would not be grave matter.

I agree. Which is why my position is that it is impossible for a person with a malformed conscience to “condemn/sin” against himself by doing good, rather then the bad his conscience is telling him to do. It would make him unknowingly pious, not sinful.

Corki, this isn’t the problem with what I ask. This is the problem that those that say a person that willfully acts against a willfully malformed conscience run into. This thought is wrapped up in the all encompassing saying that “a person must always follow their conscience or they sin against themselves”. I believe this only applies to a properly formed conscience. What I have been saying, probably poorly I guess, is the same thing you just said.

Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

I am sorry, Bookcat. I do not understand. Again, sorry.

I was not addressing that question there I was adding a quick point to the conversation before I left…

Can there ever be a case when a person “condemns himself” or “sins” by willfully NOT acting in accordance with his malformed conscience?

I have noted that YES they can…such is the teaching of the Church. (by they can I do not mean that they are “permitted” but that it can happen that a person does this in fact)

I know he can condemn himself if he willfully does not act in accordance with a well formed conscience.

The Church yes…says one must form ones conscience…and yes the Catholic has committed himself to following Christ to living according to the teachings of the Church…that yes one can say that such is part of the Christians very conscience.

But the Church is NOT saying that a person only sins if they do not do what their well formed conscience says they must do. But that even a person with an erroneous conscience in their “certain judgment” can sin by not doing what that conscience in error says they must do here and now.

Is it always the case that they are without sin in acting thus? No it is not…for one can sin by say not forming their conscience…or other ways (see that section of the CCC). Things in life are not always clear cut. There can be cases where their is no sin…and other cases where there is certain degrees of moral responsibility even with an error filled conscience.

I just don’t see how it is possible for someone to condemn themselves when they willfully act contrary to their own willfully formed malformed conscience, for one reason or another, or any reason at all.

It is almost as if you guys are saying that a person will not condemn himself if he willfully follows his willfully formed malformed conscience. How is this possible? Give me an example of this possibility, please.

Thanks.

It can be difficult…for there are various things that we do not see…but only God sees…when we try to examine someones actions and motive etc…hence the “do not judge” (do not condemn…)

But it is possible.

Though the fact that you say “willfully” does add great doubt …for if I say were to willfully (that is knowingly and intentionally) malform my conscience…well that would be already a gravely sinful act…putting myself into a very bad way of life.

Now if your thinking is it possible for someone who has a conscience formed well …according to the teachings of the Church…to intentionally go against the teachings of the Church? saying “I am following my certain judgment of conscience”…such would indeed be very problematic and doubtful. For they would actually be going against themselves here. The conflict would be within their own conscience.

Often like you prob. imagine…there can be culpability for the malformation of conscience by someone who knows better. Via choice…or a life of habitual sin etc…where conscience is deadened.

I think you are trying too hard to paint a difficult case that only God can unravel.

 

[Corki]

I agree. Which is why my position is that it is impossible for a person with a malformed conscience to “condemn/sin” against himself by doing good, rather then the bad his conscience is telling him to do. It would make him unknowingly pious, not sinful.

Corki, this isn’t the problem with what I ask. This is the problem that those that say a person that willfully acts against a willfully malformed conscience run into. This thought is wrapped up in the all encompassing saying that “a person must always follow their conscience or they sin against themselves”. I believe this only applies to a properly formed conscience. What I have been saying, probably poorly I guess, is the same thing you just said.

Thanks.

Yes, I believe you and I are on the same page.

The one example that I could think of was going back to the time when the Church tolerated slavery. A person could have formed his conscience in a manner contrary to the Church and decided that it was wrong to own slaves for any reason. If that person acted against his conscience and became a slave owner on the basis of the Church’s permissive stance, he would be sinning. It still isn’t the case that his conscience was wrong per se but that he formed it without regard for the (then) teaching of the Church.

But **not **owning slaves, the contrary act, cannot be immoral since it involves NOT doing something.

The same thing sometimes comes up with NFP. There are many Catholics who truly and sincerely believe that the Church’s stance on “serious reasons” is too permissive and that NFP should only be employed if there are truly grave reasons or not at all,. If a person believed this, even if erroneously, but still used NFP for non-grave reasons because it was “technically” not against Church teaching, he/she might be sinning against his/her conscience.

But the contrary act, reserving NFP for grave reasons or not using NFP at all is not immoral either.

Unless someone can come up with a better example, the only times I can think of where a person is bound to follow his/her conscience even if it is not properly formed is if that means inaction rather than a possibly immoral act.

 

[Bookcat]

Note too that such is not actually “rape”. There cannot actually be rape in marriage. By definition.

For each person has given other the right to the marital act. Called also the “debitum” the martial debt. The husband has given the rights over his body to his wife and vice versa.

Now can there be unreasonable requests or “demands” for marital relations. Yes of course. Can there be sinful “violence” of one spouse over the other …or other sinful assults to their dignity? Yes.

Can a wife or husband refuse at certain times…yes.

But it is not though actually rape…thought it is gravely sinful due to the violence etc of the action.

And the husband should be in loving communion with his wife.

 

[Bookcat]

If she is fairly certain that any child conceived would die and thatshe must do everything in her power to stop it, that the church is absolutely wrong in its requirements here, then it’s not as if she KNOWS what she is doing is wrong; quite the opposite. She knows what she is doing is right, and that the church in this case is wrong. How can she not follow her conscience when a life hangs in the balance?

A few other thoughts:

Women often have difficulty with having miscarriages…they can even know there is a good possibility that if they conceive a child it will die before birth …tis awful (we know) but it is important to remember that a person who will live forever has been created…

She needs to come to understand who and what she is…and what the Church is…and the authority that she has to teach etc…the very nature of the Church…she needs to go to others in the Church --good priests and other Christians and seek help and advice and assistance…so as to judge what she is to do in truth and goodness…and not try to go it alone…

She needs to seek to form her conscience properly and then she will be able to make a good judgment as to what to do in her particular struggles.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Note too that such is not actually “rape”. There cannot actually be rape in marriage. By definition…

All the definitions I have seen of rape say that it is forceable sexual contact without the consent of the victim. Spousal rape is illegal and prosecutable in all 50 states in the US. The are some countries where marriage implies continuous consent, but this is not part of the definition of rape. Not that this matters in the question at hand.

 

[Bookcat]

All the definitions I have seen of rape say that it is forceable sexual contact without the consent of the victim. Spousal rape is illegal and prosecutable in all 50 states in the US. The are some countries where marriage implies continuous consent, but this is not part of the definition of rape. Not that this matters in the question at hand.

We are talking “theological” definition.

Consent was given on the wedding day…

But yes it can be sinful of course to use violence etc…such should be far far removed from the Sacrament of Marriage.

To not call it rape does mean that certain actions that are seen too in rape…are not grave…are not very very bad.

So one can speak of abuse…forceful relations…violence…etc but technically not rape.

Just like I can not commit fornication with my wife. I can sin in some lustful way…some way that is contrary to her and our marriage during sexual relations…but is not technically that is “by definition” fornication. Fornication is sexual relations between two unmarried persons…and if I have sexual relations with someone else…that is not fornication either…that is adultery.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are talking “theological” definition.
Consent was given on the wedding day…
.

For all times and situations? I think not. Please give a reference to this theological definition of rape that excludes the possibility of spousal rape. Fornication is different because its definition hinges on not being married. But rape hinges on non-consent.

 

[Bookcat]

For all times and situations? I think not. Please give a reference to this theological definition of rape that excludes the possibility of spousal rape. Fornication is different because its definition hinges on not being married. But rape hinges on non-consent.

Yes. Just as I noted.

Your thinking legal definitions. Marriage by nature involves the reality that the exchange of the right to marital relations…the exchange of complete consent at the time of the wedding…it can be a mortal sin if I deny my wife marital relations. (though as I noted above there can be times when it is not…) Very evil actions of abuse etc could happen…but in marriage such is not “rape”.

And it should be noted that such actions in marriage can even be *worse *than rape for it is against ones own spouse!

It is a different matter but I would say too that if my wife took something “of mine” it would not be theft…for all that I have is hers…even if I preferred her not to. And lets say even if she took that precious item and sold it on ebay…that would be a grave action against me…very hurtful…and sinful…but it would still not be called I think theft for in marriage all that I have is hers…even though in civil law one could make the case perhaps.

Legal definitions are a different matter.

And as I noted above there can be all sorts of mortal sins on the part of the person who uses violence etc…*and such actions can very well be “worse” than the grave sin of rape!!. *

(any use of the term “rape” in marriage would be by analogy to what such actions would be outside marriage…but I would really not use it)

I would have to forward you my notes from my course on medical and sexual morality for my degree in Theology.

Of course I image different persons could argue about it. Different theologians could differ on these sorts of questions…even at the same university or within the same Pontifical institution. But it makes sense to me.