Original Sin

[grannymh]

So, which “deep meanings” of our spirituality do you see being attacked? I see Christian morality being pressured by society, but that is nothing new, and arguably is less so than before. What are you referring to, grannymh?

There is nothing you wrote in your post that has been “attacked” on this thread. Indeed, there is room for all of our viewpoints in our great Church.

It is with sadness, that I answer your question. The integrity of Catholic doctrine is being attacked.

 

[grannymh]

What way does our conscience develop? Our conscience is taught by other people when we are growing, we are also taught how to walk/talk. If we were never aided by others would we not be able to walk, talk or develop a conscience by ourselves?

Personally, I am wondering about which conscience you are referring to.

There has been such a variety of conscience on this thread that I have no clue the kind of conscience you have chosen. But then, common sense would say that in order to choose a particular type of conscience (and there are plenty to choose from now that a minor example of extreme dualism has been spotted ) one should have an idea of what one wants the conscience to do. In addition, one needs to determine where the conscience should reside, once it is chosen.

Obviously, since there are so many variables of conscience, it will be most difficult for me to even try to answer the opening question. "What way does our conscience develop?

 

[simpleas]

Here is a typical experience:

Toddler A sees toy toddler B has.
Toddler A wants toy toddler B has.
Toddler A takes toy other toddler B has.
Toddler B cries and feels hurt.

When this happens enough times, toddler B will learn that “stealing hurts”, and a rule will develop in his conscience: “Stealing is bad” The child will feel guilty when he steals something from someone else (unless the child is blinded by his desire), and the child will think negatively toward other children who steal. Child B may feel compelled to control child A through violent means.

Certainly this will all come together faster if the parents get involved, but parental guidance is not imperative for a child to develop a normal conscience. People from all cultures and societies have mores, and the main mores are quite similar.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

Personally, I am wondering about which conscience you are referring to.

There has been such a variety of conscience on this thread that I have no clue the kind of conscience you have chosen. But then, common sense would say that in order to choose a particular type of conscience (and there are plenty to choose from now that a minor example of extreme dualism has been spotted ) one should have an idea of what one wants the conscience to do. In addition, one needs to determine where the conscience should reside, once it is chosen.

Obviously, since there are so many variables of conscience, it will be most difficult for me to even try to answer the opening question. "What way does our conscience develop?

I don’t think i’m referring to any conscience but my own. Your question was What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?
Thats what i didn’t understand
I think i still have the same conscience intact that i had before this thread
But i’ll admit my way of thinking and understanding has altered from answers given by posters

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think i’m referring to any conscience but my own. Your question was What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?
Thats what i didn’t understand

No big deal. I found the answer in that link you posted. Thank you.

I think i still have the same conscience intact that i had before this thread
But i’ll admit my way of thinking and understanding has altered from answers given by posters

I love my conscience. :extrahappy: It recently helped me solve a private question about a spiritual matter.

I really should thank God for including conscience when He designed our spiritual soul. Knowing that God gave our first ancestor conscience tools at the same moment that Adam came into being is comforting because now I know that I really do have a legitimate spiritual conscience. (I am a descendant of Adam.) Unfortunately, reading some of the above descriptions of conscience tools, made me leery.

 

[simpleas]

No big deal. I found the answer in that link you posted. Thank you.

I love my conscience. :extrahappy: It recently helped me solve a private question about a spiritual matter.

I really should thank God for including conscience when He designed our spiritual soul. Knowing that God gave our first ancestor conscience tools at the same moment that Adam came into being is comforting because now I know that I really do have a legitimate spiritual conscience. (I am a descendant of Adam.) Unfortunately, reading some of the above descriptions of conscience tools, made me leery.

What answer was that then?

Glad you love your conscience:thumbsup:
I like mine, it keeps me on the right path to always try to do good to others

We all are descendants of Adam and Eve are we not? Ok in my case a tad confused, anixous, to understand, but i’m getting there…i hope:blush:
And you are as intitled to your opinion as others on here are to theirs!

 

[grannymh]

What answer was that then?

Glad you love your conscience:thumbsup:
I like mine, it keeps me on the right path to always try to do good to others

We all are descendants of Adam and Eve are we not? Ok in my case a tad confused, anixous, to understand, but i’m getting there…i hope:blush:
And you are as intitled to your opinion as others on here are to theirs!

Here is the original link.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

Here is the link to the homily transcript which has been edited for print publication.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-s-homily-at-mass-for-health-care-professionals

Here is the original link’s key explanation/answer to: What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?

Answer from link. I added the bold
“What has happened with so many Catholics today is that they have come to understand conscience as listening to their own voice,” he said, **“rather than listening to the voice of God **as He has revealed himself in Scripture and in Tradition.”
snip
“It is important for us to form consciences, especially in our own time when people are told, ‘Well, just follow your conscience,’” he continued. “Most people today do not even know what conscience is, let alone that they are called to form their conscience."
“listening to their own voice” instead of listening to Catholic teachings is exactly what prevents people from understanding that a spiritual conscience is different from a physical newborn anatomy. Listening to one’s own voice is exactly why there are distorted descriptions of conscience especially in reference to the real Original Sin.

Personally, this thread has been an eye opener for me. I never realized that people would separate conscience from God’s creative act in giving Adam, and subsequently Adam’s descendants, a rational spiritual soul. I should have known that “silliness” based on the fact that many, not all, Catholics consider Adam as some kind of half-human waiting to learn what is right and what is wrong – waiting to eat organic fruit with magical properties.

 

[OneSheep]

It is with sadness, that I answer your question. The integrity of Catholic doctrine is being attacked.

Catholic doctrine, grannymh, has changed over time. You already know this. Changes do not happen suddenly. No, people kick around ideas for years, and the ideas are incorporated into doctrine. Science keeps introducing new facts revealed by nature, for example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Remember, too, that St. Thomas Aquinas noted that revelation comes from both scripture and the natural world.

There is no “attack” on Catholic doctrine from me, nor from anyone else. As I have said a few times before, there are contradictions in Catholic doctrine, and many of us are trying to make sense out of it, including the originator of this thread. Other posters have offered a means of making it all work together.

On the other hand, I understand the desire for there to be no change in doctrine, even if it is an improvement. Doctrinal stability gives us a sense of security, and change is very uncomfortable for many people. For that reason, I think that doctrinal clarifications and updates need to be done with great care.

In the mean time, and always, it is not the finer points of doctrine that make us all Catholic. We are Catholic in that we all love and follow Jesus, we recognize Him as our savior, and other aspects including our creed, involvement in our parishes, and the sacraments. A pastoral approach is a humble approach, one that is inclusive because none of us has a perfect knowledge of the truth.

So please, grannymh, embrace a pastoral approach. Do not accuse people of attacking doctrine when they seek to clarify it and clear up the contradictions.

And, if you really think that people are attacking, please forgive them. Everyone is well-intended. Everyone.

 

[fhansen]

Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to say. I don’t see the consistency here. God has no reasons to defend and protect Himself from His creatures, as they can’t really steal any of His powers and use them to fight against Him. “Wanting to be like God” in this sense is a stretch: how can a creature become like the Creator behind His back and despite His will? This sounds like “God can be defeated” and it’s incompatible with our understanding about God as being omniscient and omnipotent. By contrast, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” implies that God wants us to “be like Him” and that our true destiny as individuals and species is to grow up, to gain wisdom, to better ourselves.

Adam couldn’t become like the creator behind His back; that’s the point. Man can only become like God when he’s in communion with God, partnered with God. Free will gives us the ability to thwart Gods purposes because otherwise we can’t also freely align ourselves with them, which is the choice He wants us to make since His will and purposes are impeccable, only for the good of His creation.

 

[grannymh]

Catholic doctrine, grannymh, has changed over time. You already know this. Changes do not happen suddenly. No, people kick around ideas for years, and the ideas are incorporated into doctrine. Science keeps introducing new facts revealed by nature, for example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Goodness gracious! (Sidebar. According to Google, “Sweet little old ladies use this term a lot.”)

My apology.

I need to keep in mind that the vast majority of today’s Catholics are not aware of how the visible Catholic Church on earth operates. For example. How the planet earth moves or doesn’t move in the blue sky was never a duly declared Catholic doctrine – despite hundreds of posts.

Remember, too, that St. Thomas Aquinas noted that revelation comes from both scripture and the natural world.

Again, my apology for pointing out the obvious. The natural world is made up of planets, mountains, bacteria, elephants, hamburgers, rivers, etc. Now I do agree that St. Thomas Aquinas may not have known about hamburgers sold in fast food establishments. But he was smart enough to recognize that the natural, material [scientific] world is not a Divine Being known as God. So I really doubt that his use of the world “revelation” as from the created natural world was referring to Divine Revelation from a transcendent, supernatural, infinite Creator.

There is no “attack” on Catholic doctrine from me, nor from anyone else.

The actual comment is: “It is with sadness, that I answer your question. The integrity of Catholic doctrine is being attacked.” The operative word is integrity.

For general information, I agree with the 1907 Pope who made it clear that while it was his duty to defend unchangeable doctrines against those within the Church promoting changes, he would not assume knowing the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.

As I have said a few times before, there are contradictions in Catholic doctrine, and many of us are trying to make sense out of it, including the originator of this thread. Other posters have offered a means of making it all work together.

My apology. I must be older than I think I am. I really cannot remember which specific properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrine you referred to in earlier posts. I do recall some discussion about some half-teachings regarding some scripture quotes. However, not every word in every verse in every chapter of every book in the Bible automatically becomes Catholic doctrine. More often, scripture teachings support a doctrine. If anyone has a few extra minutes, I suggest reading paragraphs 20-21 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

On the other hand, I understand the desire for there to be no change in doctrine, even if it is an improvement. Doctrinal stability gives us a sense of security, and change is very uncomfortable for many people. For that reason, I think that doctrinal clarifications and updates need to be done with great care.

I would love to get on the same page with you, so will you kindly be more specific? Those who are aware of how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth understand how the key CCC, 66-67 paragraphs relate to actual doctrines --which knowledge would certainly help in discussions.

In the mean time, and always, it is not the finer points of doctrine that make us all Catholic.

Say what?

My apology, but now this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny is totally lost as to your meaning. What makes a person a Catholic is a free will choice to accept Catholic doctrines. Knowledge of a specific doctrine is important, but knowledge without action is simply knowledge.

snip

So please, grannymh, embrace a pastoral approach. Do not accuse people of attacking doctrine when they seek to clarify it and clear up the contradictions.

May I gently repeat that my concern is the integrity of Catholic doctrine. Maybe I should have added properly defined Catholic doctrine. Perhaps, if people study chapter 14, Gospel of John …

And, if you really think that people are attacking, please forgive them. Everyone is well-intended. Everyone.

Goodness gracious that is a Bingo!

From reading hundreds of posts, I know that the integrity of Catholic doctrine is under attack. FYI I also read some, not all, documents from a recent clash between the U.S. Bishops and a dissenting Catholic author. Various movements promoting secular changes in certain individual doctrines have been around for centuries. St. Paul referenced possible wolves within the Catholic community. Acts chapter 20, St. Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus. In that address, St. Paul also referenced repentance before God.

As a simple granny, I am not the judge of people’s inner intentions. Nor can I presume knowing the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.
With that in mind, I “forgive” others as a form of prayer for them. We should not exclude anyone from our prayers.

 

[grannymh]

Humility? A wisp of morning thought.

Could it be that humility is what we need to learn from the correct Catholic teaching about Original Sin and its results?

Knowing that we are called to share in God’s life here and in heaven … and then realizing that we have a wounded human nature … would we really stand before God puffed up with pride? In reality, we need to be more like the tax collector in yesterday’s Gospel. Surely, it would be common sense to recognize our position in true humility before our Creator.

 

[OneSheep]

With that in mind, I “forgive” others as a form of prayer for them. We should not exclude anyone from our prayers.

Thank you, grannymh, for having a conversation with me. What does it mean to “forgive others as a form of prayer for them”? This is unfamiliar to me.

BTW, I do need to clarify “changes”. catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

Vatican II on Development

In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it. The same could be said about Old Testament prophets: Why didn’t they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer over time.

One of the “implications” may be that of God’s attitude toward us. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the idea of Jesus as payment to a wrathful god (from earlier post by vames):

“Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”. He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

Please, I know, this is in the context of baptism, but your comment about that was a red herring. This is not expiation to a wrathful God, that is what he said. Now, I would be so bold to add: Yes, this is not expiation to a wrathful God, but it is understandable and acceptable for us to perceive that Jesus’ death was payment to a wrathful God, because that image of God is what our human guilt, a natural phenomenon and positive aspect of the conscience, presents all of us.

When we forgive, guilt and resentment fall away, and we see God much differently. We see a presence beneath the conscience.

God Bless you, and thanks again for answering my post.

 

[OneSheep]

Humility? A wisp of morning thought.

Could it be that humility is what we need to learn from the correct Catholic teaching about Original Sin and its results?

Knowing that we are called to share in God’s life here and in heaven … and then realizing that we have a wounded human nature … would we really stand before God puffed up with pride? In reality, we need to be more like the tax collector in yesterday’s Gospel. Surely, it would be common sense to recognize our position in true humility before our Creator.

I actually thought of you when I heard yesterday’s gospel. Have I been humble enough in the way I interact with you? Maybe not.

Grannymh, concerning the fear, the resentment, the difficulty of forgiveness, the finding security in doctrine, and all these matters, know that I am not immune. I struggle with these things too, I share the human condition. Please do not get the impression that I think I am better than you in any way. You have a stance, and I respect your stance. I would like you to respect, and accept, my own. I did not pull my views from other religions or ideologies, my experience was, and is, genuinely Catholic Christian.

Do have a nice day.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you, grannymh, for having a conversation with me. What does it mean to “forgive others as a form of prayer for them”? This is unfamiliar to me.

As for form, it is not set in stone.

Because I do not consider myself as having God’s power to forgive other person’s sins, I trust in God’s judgment. Recognizing that all of us are sinners, I may pray this prayer or similar. O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy. I may pray that others will follow God’s will and avoid sin. And I pray that God will grant them mercy which is actually a prayer of trust in God’s forgiveness. Or I may pray none of the above, but simple keep others in general prayers of petition.

 

[grannymh]

BTW, I do need to clarify “changes”. catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

From granny’s post 442.
Those who are aware of how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth understand how the key CCC, 66-67 paragraphs relate to actual doctrines --which knowledge would certainly help in discussions.
From link in OneSheep’s post 444.
catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

Hold Fast to What You Were Taught

Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73).
From granny’s post 442.
May I gently repeat that my concern is the integrity of Catholic doctrine. Maybe I should have added properly defined Catholic doctrine. Perhaps, if people study chapter 14, Gospel of John …
From link in OneSheep’s post 444.

Vatican II explained, "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.

snip

If we think of ourselves as having no recourse to apostolic tradition and to the Church’s teaching authority that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (cf. John 14:25-26, 16:13), we can appreciate how easy it must have been for the early heresies concerning the Trinity and Holy Spirit to arise.
From granny’s post 442.
I need to keep in mind that the vast majority of today’s Catholics are not aware of how the visible Catholic Church on earth operates.
From *CCC, *66.
**66 **“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
From link in OneSheep’s post 444.

Those who are ignorant of orthodox Christian doctrine because they have never been taught it, or who are unstable in their adherence to the orthodox doctrine they have been taught, can twist Paul’s writings and the rest of Scripture to their own destruction. Therefore, it is important that we read Scripture within the framework of the Church’s constant tradition, as handed down from the apostles in the Catholic Church.
Interesting point not in granny’s post 422 is the practical protocol used by the Catholic Church to gradually grasp the full significance of Divine Revelation. The link in post 444 describes it briefly.
Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her”
(Dei Verbum 8).
According to the history presented in CCC, 406, “The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation regarding Original Sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).”

As recent as 1950, Pope Pius XII affirmed that these teachings on Original Sin are permanent according to the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church. (Humani Generis, #37) This means that those who deny Original Sin or who propose secular changes to the doctrines of Original Sin and its results for humanity are in error–not always intentionally.

From granny’s post 442.
For general information, I agree with the 1907 Pope who made it clear that while it was his duty to defend unchangeable doctrines against those within the Church promoting changes, he would not assume knowing the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge. Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists.

Because Original Sin is defined as being committed by the actual original human, the doctrinal teachings regarding this man, biblically known as Adam, are also immune to secular proposals for updating Catholicism.

 

[simpleas]

Here is the original link.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

Here is the link to the homily transcript which has been edited for print publication.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-s-homily-at-mass-for-health-care-professionals

Here is the original link’s key explanation/answer to: What prevents people from understanding that conscience does not develop in the same way as our newborn anatomy develops into a walking, talking adult?

Answer from link. I added the bold
“What has happened with so many Catholics today is that they have come to understand conscience as listening to their own voice,” he said, **“rather than listening to the voice of God **as He has revealed himself in Scripture and in Tradition.”
snip
“It is important for us to form consciences, especially in our own time when people are told, ‘Well, just follow your conscience,’” he continued. “Most people today do not even know what conscience is, let alone that they are called to form their conscience."
“listening to their own voice” instead of listening to Catholic teachings is exactly what prevents people from understanding that a spiritual conscience is different from a physical newborn anatomy. Listening to one’s own voice is exactly why there are distorted descriptions of conscience especially in reference to the real Original Sin.

Personally, this thread has been an eye opener for me. I never realized that people would separate conscience from God’s creative act in giving Adam, and subsequently Adam’s descendants, a rational spiritual soul. I should have known that “silliness” based on the fact that many, not all, Catholics consider Adam as some kind of half-human waiting to learn what is right and what is wrong – waiting to eat organic fruit with magical properties.

Thank you.
Personally I believe I have a “good” conscience, I remind myself which things in life are of good/bad and my conscience tells me yes or no in some situations.
So this is the voice of God keeping me on the side of goodness if you like.
What then is the voice that tells other people that something I would regard as wrong is actually ok? It would not be God, so it would be the devil? Or the person listening to their own thoughts…
I find it hard to grasp that every thought/deed is supposed to be controlled by Gods will, but we have our free will also, we can make our own decisions, be they of God or not.
We will always be sinners no matter what we try to do, even asking for as much grace as possible won’t really work it seems sometimes.

I’m still uncertain who Adam and Eve were to tell you the truth, I like to believe the catholic teaching, but its not deep enough to keep me strong in that belief.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, grannymh, you really threw the book at me on that last one. Lots of effort, too. However, you completely disregarded the quotes I gave you, so I am going to play the same game on that one. I forgive you, you are in the mode of protecting doctrine from “attack”. I hope you forgive me too.

What is positive, to me, is that you showed a willingness to talk about forgiveness, which brings us back to Original Sin, which was somewhat clarified by St. Augustine well after 100 A.D.

 

[OneSheep]

Because I do not consider myself as having God’s power to forgive other person’s sins, I trust in God’s judgment.

We are all called to a common priesthood, and this includes having the power and the command to forgive others’ sins against us. So, indeed the power to forgive sins comes from God’s grace, but such grace is not withheld from His followers, and arguably, any other living human on Earth. We all have the ability, and the calling, to forgive one another.

So, if someone does something that trespasses against my values, am I given a reprieve from the call to forgive them? Like, “I don’t have to forgive that person, because it’s in God’s hands, I can hold onto everything I have against that person”?

Please, talk to a priest or sister about this. I don’t think you value my words. Then, you can report back to me what they said.

Recognizing that all of us are sinners, I may pray this prayer or similar. O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy. I may pray that others will follow God’s will and avoid sin. And I pray that God will grant them mercy which is actually a prayer of trust in God’s forgiveness. Or I may pray none of the above, but simple keep others in general prayers of petition.

Thank you.

I would like to add: “forgive me my sin, as I forgive those who sin against me.”

Or: “Jesus, I have done as you have asked, I have forgiven all those I have hold anything against. You have opened my eyes to your infinite love and forgiveness, and I freely love everyone who has ever lived on this Earth; I have found true love by shedding all of the conditions blocking my forgiveness of others.”

Do you see the significance of these additions? Is one of these additions contrary to the CCC?

 

[grannymh]

Thank you.
Personally I believe I have a “good” conscience, I remind myself which things in life are of good/bad and my conscience tells me yes or no in some situations.
So this is the voice of God keeping me on the side of goodness if you like.
What then is the voice that tells other people that something I would regard as wrong is actually ok? It would not be God, so it would be the devil? Or the person listening to their own thoughts…

You are the one who is keeping yourself on the side of goodness.

“Conscience” is listed on page 776, Index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. There are 24 topics about conscience. My suggestion is to choose a topic and read its paragraphs. Also helpful will be the footnotes and the cross-references in the margins. On page 878 of the Catechism’s Glossary, there is a definition for Examination of Conscience which is part of the preparation for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I find it hard to grasp that every thought/deed is supposed to be controlled by Gods will, but we have our free will also, we can make our own decisions, be they of God or not.

My apology. I do not know the origin of the unusual idea that “every thought/deed is supposed to be controlled by God’s will.” My guess is that it is some misunderstanding of human nature’s relationship with God. Maybe it is a false notion of the fact that we are in the image of God.

We will always be sinners no matter what we try to do, even asking for as much grace as possible won’t really work it seems sometimes.

Not necessarily.

There is a big difference between a wounded human nature and a totally corrupted human nature when it comes to using the word “sinners.” Being a sinner does not always mean that we are actively sinning every moment. In our humility, we need to recognize our capability to sin and that we have sinned. We recognize that our weakened human nature is inclined to sin because that is so much easier than doing the right thing. With these thoughts in mind, we can acknowledge that we are a sinner.

The Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation gives us many graces to be used in future battles against temptations to sin

At the same time that we acknowledge our sinful acts, thoughts, and omissions, we seek the Good Shepherd Who wants to hold us, a sinner, close to His heart and carry us home.

Links
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you.
Personally I believe I have a “good” conscience, I remind myself which things in life are of good/bad and my conscience tells me yes or no in some situations.
So this is the voice of God keeping me on the side of goodness if you like.
What then is the voice that tells other people that something I would regard as wrong is actually ok? It would not be God, so it would be the devil? Or the person listening to their own thoughts…
I find it hard to grasp that every thought/deed is supposed to be controlled by Gods will, but we have our free will also, we can make our own decisions, be they of God or not.
We will always be sinners no matter what we try to do, even asking for as much grace as possible won’t really work it seems sometimes.

I’m still uncertain who Adam and Eve were to tell you the truth, I like to believe the catholic teaching, but its not deep enough to keep me strong in that belief.

To me, all of our consciences are “good”, even though they may be somewhat uninformed. Our conscience, as I have stated, is a gift from God.

Our conscience keeps us on the side of goodness, as you have said, but I think that our consciences can also be very hard on us, and at some point we need to stop our self-punishment and forgive ourselves.

We can take ownership of all of our thoughts and deeds. We are not puppets. We are, however, somewhat biological and psychological machines in that we all have the “appetites”.

And yes, I agree, we are all sinners. But I think it is very important what we do with that identity. Do we forgive ourselves and all others, or do we hang onto resentment, the action of an unmitigated conscience? We can be sinners, but also know that we are beautiful and wonderful in the eyes of God. We too, can see all others this way.