Personal conscience vs. encyclical instruction

  • Thread starter Thread starter javelin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

javelin

Guest
I was an RCIA sponsor one year, and a nun taught something that didn’t sit right with me. When “ranking” the moral authorities in a Catholic’s life, she ranked “personal conscience” above everything except core dogma – ranking it higher that Papal encyclicals. One obvious ramification of this is how one approaches contraception. She said very emphatically that the guidance of the Church on abstaining from artificial contraception was not an infallible teaching, since it is grounded in encyclicals, and therefore “personal conscience” takes precedence.

She wasn’t saying that everyone should go out and use contraception, by any means. She said that instructions and guidelines laid out in encyclicals should be taken very seriously, but if a Catholic approached a situation in serious prayer and reflection, and came away feeling that contraceptive use in a particular case was justified, then it was not sinful – an example of “personal conscience” taking precedence over the teachings in an encyclical.

This particular religious woman was late middle-aged, very well educated, and extremely well respected in the Diocese.

I’m interested to know what people think on the matter, obviously one of some importance. I’m certain I know what the general opinion is going to be, but I’d like to know who can find specific information regarding the “ranking” of moral authority in the Church.

God bless,
javelin
 
She’s dead wrong. The teaching on contraception is not specifically dogmatically defined, but it requires both interior and exterior assent by the faithful.

Scott
 
Personal conscience is certainly important but human nature is such that we often try to justify things we want, which are contrary to established teachings and dogmas, by resorting to it. This is probably a major contributor to why Protestantism keeps subdividing into different denominations.

The way to keep personal conscience from becoming a get-out-of-jail-free card to do whatever we want, is to be fully versed in Catholic Tradition. Whenever what we think to be a matter of personal conscience contradicts the Church, we should probably assume we are fooling ourselves.
 
Hitler followed his conscience 100%.

Joseph Stalin followed his conscience 100%.

Mao Tse Tung followed his conscience 100%.

What a wonderful world it would be…

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
**

****1783 ****Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
**

Conscience must be informed and orientated to truth or what you are talking about is individualism, the core tenet of Protestanism
 
Hey Jav,

Seems to me that encyclicals would be an example teaching under the ordinary magisterium. If I remember correctly, Lumen Gentium says that Joe six pack Catholic has a duty of “obsequium” (i.e. maintain an attitude of submissiveness) WRT such ordinary teaching. The good sister is right about our duty to follow our conscience, but her portrayal of that process (“but if a Catholic approached a situation in serious prayer and reflection, and came away feeling…”) is way off. I tell my Confirmation classes that they will be held accountable for their negligently formed consciences. I also tell them that feelings have nothing to do with it.

I also recall reading an article by a theologian with a French-sounding name that HV is an infallible teaching in the sense that is a restatement of what the Church has always taught.

Anyway, I have been exposed to similar shallow teaching from religious on the subject of conscience. All we can do is teach the truth. If I ever get the opportunity in that kind of situation, I am going to challenge the speaker to really define conscience, formation of conscience, etc.

Cordially,

Ferd
 
Sometimes we have to do away with our feelings and trust the higher moral authorities! Being a follower of Christ DOES require sacrifices!

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: OBEDIENCE, CHILD! :tsktsk: :tsktsk:
 
I’d like to commend everyone who has posted on this thread. It’s a great question, javelin, and all of the responses were very impressive!

I know of a priest whose faculties have been suspended because he chose to follow his own conscience rather than obey his superiors (over the minor matter of accepting a transfer!)

It is sad to see that some people will take that “conscience clause” to an extreme, making their own personal consciences paramount.

I’ve heard of women who’ve chosen abortion and sterilization after “much prayer.”

What faulty consciences!

Thank God for the Church, Which teaches Truth. Even when our consciences and our human logic fail us, we have Her Teachings to guide us on the right path!

Pax Christi. <><
 
Most people misuse or misunderstand the “Personal Conscience” application. “Personal Conscience” is above all, it sits within human dignity. No person can be forced to act against their conscience. Now exactly how you twist that around into what people commonly use it for is beyond me.

I feel this way or that way or I don’t accept a certain teaching, or I don’t like a certain teaching. Does not fit here. A person must truly believe that what they are refusing to do or what they are doing is required by God in order to invoke “Personal Conscience”

By the way the teaching of the Church on ABC IS infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. A person who really does not understand the teaching or a person who is coerced or has never heard of the Church teaching. Still commits a sin by the act but the guilt or responsibility is lessened because of the circumstances.

You should have reminded her what Pius XII said about the authority of Encyclicals.
 
kjvail said:
** **

Conscience must be informed and orientated to truth or what you are talking about is individualism, the core tenet of Protestanism
Click to expand...

Which Protestants? I have not seen this as a core tenet of any Protestant church. And Protestant is a catch for non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians. They differ so greatly from each other that statements like these are simply inflammatory.

If you said, “Liberal mainline Methodist Churches believe such and such…”, then you may have a valid point. But as a Protestant my conscience is bound by Scripture and to a lesser extent the teachings of my denomination.

Cheap shots and blanket statements are never helpful.

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
But as a Protestant my conscience is bound by Scripture and to a lesser extent the teachings of my denomination.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but it’s statements like that may have led the initial poster to say that “individualism” is a key Protestant tenet. Your conscience is bound to your interpretation of Scripture, and to a lesser extent to your denomination’s interpretations. That puts you, the individual, as the sole arbiter of truth. As Catholics, we are not the sole arbiter of truth, but are subject to that arbiter. Or, at least, as the topic implies, we should be so subject.

Incidentally, it was this very thing that led me most to the Catholic Church. I was never comfortable being the one with the final say as to what was and wasn’t revealed.

Blessings.
 
Note the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1783-1785

**II. The Formation of Conscience

**Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
 
40.png
javelin:
I was an RCIA sponsor one year, and a nun taught something that didn’t sit right with me. When “ranking” the moral authorities in a Catholic’s life, she ranked “personal conscience” above everything except core dogma – ranking it higher that Papal encyclicals. One obvious ramification of this is how one approaches contraception. She said very emphatically that the guidance of the Church on abstaining from artificial contraception was not an infallible teaching, since it is grounded in encyclicals, and therefore “personal conscience” takes precedence.

She wasn’t saying that everyone should go out and use contraception, by any means. She said that instructions and guidelines laid out in encyclicals should be taken very seriously, but if a Catholic approached a situation in serious prayer and reflection, and came away feeling that contraceptive use in a particular case was justified, then it was not sinful – an example of “personal conscience” taking precedence over the teachings in an encyclical.

This particular religious woman was late middle-aged, very well educated, and extremely well respected in the Diocese.

I’m interested to know what people think on the matter, obviously one of some importance. I’m certain I know what the general opinion is going to be, but I’d like to know who can find specific information regarding the “ranking” of moral authority in the Church.

God bless,
javelin
Click to expand...

My two pennies:​

Conscience does not = “a way to get out of doing what one does not wish to do”. “Orthodox” Catholics are exercising their consciences every time they make a moral decision - just like the “unorthodox”. So it is a major blunder to think of conscience as a faculty no Christian should use - it is an essential part of human nature. So it should never become a bad word - it is not a “get-out” mechanism, but a means of discerning how to act rightly when faced with moral choices. It is not something to be afraid of, ever. It’s just rather difficult to use rightly - and the same could be said of our bodily appetites. That does not make them bad.

And, crises of conscience are crises within conscience - it’s not conscience versus “something else”, but conscience versus itself. Mgr. Cormac Burke has written about this at length, and clearly.

It is never morally right to go against conscience - as long as one has done one’s best to inform it. Even if it is objectively ill-formed, it is morally wrong to coerce it. It has to be respected. So in hard cases, if someone was subjectively convinced, for example, that it was God’s will for him to kill his children, that person could be stopped, but could not be forced to change his mind - only his external way of behaviour. But then, most people, mercifully, don’t behave like that. ##
 
a nun taught something that didn’t sit right with me. …
Click to expand...
The popular argument by the dissenting Catholics (which I used to be http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif ) might clarify the nun’s position.

Fr. John Hardon, a very conservative Catholic scholar, wrote:
PROBABILISM. The moral theory that holds that a law against whose existence or application there stands a solidly probable argument does not bind. It is based on the principle that a doubtful law does not bind. It then excludes other theories as either too strict or too lax about the degree of doubt or probability that would exempt one from the obligation of a doubtful law.
Click to expand...
Many dissenters, whether liberal dissenters or ultra-traditionalist dissenters (e.g. Lefebvrists), use probabilism (incorrectly) to justify their dissent with Catholic teaching.

Probablism is an accepted methodology of the Catholic Church. It teaches that in *doubtful matters, *people could follow the *probable *opinion of a competent *minority *of theologians.

However, liberal and utlra-traditionalist dissenters have equally abused this methodology in an attempt to support their disobedience to certain (yet not-yet-infallibly defined) Catholic teachings and practice. Both dissenting groups, ironically sharing the same methodology, tending towards a “we only need to believe *infallible *dogmas” attitude, and therefore, the non-infallible teachings of the Catholic Church can be considered doubtful at will, and therefore dissented with.

An example of legitamite use of probabilism is as follows: Although unconditional predestination (Thomism) may be held by a majority of Catholic theologians, one may consider this opinion doubtful, and instead assert conditional predestination (Molinism). The Magisterium has decided to not favor one theological position or the other. Therefore, it remains a matter of liberty.

However, the dissenting groups that misuse this methodology fail to realize that *doubtful matters *can no longer be considered doubtful when the Teaching Church clearly decides (whether infallibly defined or not) for one or the other position. In the case of birth control and liturgical reforms, the Church has made *certain *judgment, elliminating contrary positions as obediently being held because of a pretense to doubtful matters.
 
In rebuttal to the nun’s argument from probabilism (made famous by Fr. Charles Curran)…

Academic Dissent: An Original Ecclesiology
by Joseph Costanzo, S.J.
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a034.html
An authentic noninfallible teaching of the magisterium is invested with certitude, that is, with moral, practical certitude. Such a certitude precludes and, in fact, is un related to any consideration of a contrary probable opinion. It is not the absolute possibility of error that an authentic noninfallible teaching of the Church speculatively does not foreclose that establishes the justifying grounds for recourse to the principle of probabilism. Nor is such recourse dependent upon the acknowledgement of a “doubtful law does not bind,” a popular axiom which presumes what it denies. Probabilism does not rely on the absolute possibility of error but rather, given the absence of certitude (which an authentic noninfallible teaching of the Church does provide), it is an exercise of the virtue of prudence to choose between two solidly probable opinions. No such claim on the absence of certitude on the Church’s absolute ban against artificial contraceptives may be made as existing within the Magisterium, whatever doubts some private theologians may have entertained within their own persuasion after 1963.
Click to expand...
 
itsjustdave1988,

I think what JAVELIN is asking is a great question. you seem very knowledgeable, maybe you can answer it.

What is the “ranking” of moral authority in the Church? I ask the same question in a somewhat different way - The CCC90 says there is a hierarchy of Truth, but doesn’t explain it. I know the highest truth is The Deposit of Faith, but what’s next? Dogma?Doctrine? Practice? Tennent?

Does the Church teaching on the Rosary carry the same weight as Christ divinity? Are the feast days of the Saints infallible. What’s infallable and what is not? How does conscience play a part?

Can you enlighten us? it would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Chris G
 
hey Gottle and Dave,

Very good stuff you guys posted. thanks!

cordially

Ferd
 
There is no “ranking” of Truth in the Church!

Something is either True or it is not! Period.
The “Hierarchy of Truth”, has nothing to do with one truth being more true than another. It describes the situation where Truth “A” is dependent on Truth “B”. We know and believe this “A” because we know and believe this “B”.

“A” and “B” are both equally true, one is not less true than the other.
 
The Church’s Teaching on Artificial Contraception is not based on Encyclicals. This proves the Nun’s intelligence on the subject. Yes Paul VI wrote a Encyclical on Human Life but the Church’s Teaching is based on 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition and based on Sacred Scripture. This is an Infallible Teaching. It can not and will not ever change. It is never okay to use Artificial Contraception. It is always and everywhere a grave sin. When someone knows it is gravely wrong and then willing uses contraception with with full consent and reflection it is a Mortal sin which destroys the supernatural grace in the soul and can only be forgiven by Sacramental Conffession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top