Marietta,
Maybe my post did not come through as clearly as I hoped it would. I was not suggesting that you or anyone else go through and answer all of these questions. What I am saying is that to answer questions regarding morality, the Church has gone through this process over the centuries. A person can either accept the Church’s conclusions or go through the process themselves. Personally, to go through that whole process is like reinventing the wheel. If someone has done it and has done a good job at it, then why not just pick up from their conclusions?
As to the training of Sisters before the 1960s, they were trained to be teachers, nurses, social workers and so forth. Their training in religious studies was limited to catechesis. They studied the rule and spirituality of their founders and they reflected on scripture. They also went on an annual retreat and usually a one day retreat monthly. This is how they got their formation in religious studies and faith. In other words, they did not have formal education in theology. This does not mean that they did not know the faith. What they did not know was the apriori questions and discussions that led to these conclusions. But they did know the conclusions and it was these that they taught to their students. This is the same as most religious educators today. Most religious educators know the teachings of the Church, but are not trained in the theological process that led to these teachings. Such theological training requires years of study, usually six to eight years at university specializing in theology and philosophy.
You also express concern for souls being lost, because the Sisters were not theologians. This cannot happen. One is not morally culpable for what one does not know. One is only accountable for what one knows and one’s choices based on what one knows, not what you don’t know. If the Sisters never taught you that you had to confess your sins (just an example) and no one else told you, you are not morally culpable for not confessing your sins. This is called invincible ignorance.
Obviously, most of us who went through Catholic elementary schools grew up and we have had the opportunity to learn more than what we learned in elementary school. The possibility of a Catholic not having access to learn more about his faith is very minimal, especially in developed nations such as the USA where we have so many opportunities to attend courses, retreats, workshops, congresses and other forms of adult religious education. Now there are shorter degrees in religious studies, than in the past. In my day it was an eight-year program. You had to study four years of philosophy and four years of theology. Many of these courses have been combined, the reading lists are shorter, the internet has made research faster and easier and the use of media to teach has also helped students learn more in a shorter amount of time. You don’t have to sit and read thousands of pages over an eight-year period.
Finally, to answer your question regarding free will. Catholicism does not deny free will. In fact it has been a great defender of religious freedom since the 1950s. The real issue is that free will does not mean that everything we desire to do is morally correct. In addition, conscience must be properly formed. An incorrectly formed conscience can be a very dangerous thing. If we look at contemporary times, radial Islamic believers feel very strongly that it is their moral duty to wage a holy war against the West. This is their conscience. But this is an incorrectly formed conscience. Conscience can never be contrary to revelation. Revelation has taught us that life is sacred and that human beings are sons and daughters of the Father. Therefore, you cannot declare war on others and terrorize them or worse, kill them. This is something that the Catholic Church cannot defend, even if the person’s conscience tells him that it is the right thing to do.
The Church must uphold revelation and the primacy of revelation over conscience. Conscience must conform to revelation. Such conformation does not take away from free will. All conscience does is inform the mind. The choice to follow the counsels of the conscience belongs to the will. The will is free to ignore the counsels of the conscience. The will is free to choose not to educate the conscience. That being said, the soul is the one who must live with the consequences of the choices that the will makes. What you have within each person is a triadic dynamic between the will, the conscience and the soul. The conscience informs the will. The will chooses. The soul reaps the consequences (good or bad).
Again, if we entertain a thought that is contrary to moral law and desire it, even if we never act on it, the fact that we desire it implies where we stand on this particular moral question.
I hope this helps.
JR
