Personal conscience vs. encyclical instruction

  • Thread starter Thread starter javelin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi all!

A little bit on conscience:

**1778 **Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. **Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. **
  1. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to* exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. *This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.
    ***Ioannes Paulus PP. II
    *Veritatis splendor 1993.08.06
Peace,
Scott
 
Hi Br. Rich,

Yes, Truth is Truth. But I was asking different questions…
  1. The Deposit of Faith is the highest Truth. I think doctrine or dogma is next and a “belief” is the last in the “hierarchy of Truth”. Do you know official Church teaching on this?
  2. Which things are in which catagory? I assume the Divinity of Christ is in the Deposit of Faith. I am guessing that the Rosary is a “belief”. Is the Rosary as important a truth as the Divinity of Christ? Can you tell me what is in what catagory officailly?
  3. Where does conscience come in? The Church says an informed conscience must be followed so what if they conflict such as in cases of “just war”, receiving on the tongue, evolution and the like.
Can you help my understanding? Thanks.
 
chrisg93,

Maybe a bit from the Catechism will help:

The dogmas of the faith

[88](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/88.htm’)😉 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

[89](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/89.htm’)😉 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

**9[0](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/90.htm’);)**The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

50 Cf. Jn 8:31-32.
51 Cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3016:nexus mysteriorum; LG 25.
52 UR II

If you are looking for a “faith Top Ten list”… I don’t think you’ll find it… and for that matter why it is needed???

Peace,
Scott
 
I believe the nun’s attempt to build a hierarchy of truths is oversimplified. Sometimes when attempting to simplify a complex topic such as dogmatic theology, in your simplified explanations you sacrifice exactness.

I understand your frustration. I sponsored a candidate a couple years ago and went through RCIA with him. The discussion of dogmas, doctrines, and custom was painfully presented and I think only served to confuse folks even more.

To seek greater exactness with regard to the theological levels of dogmatic certainty, I recommend the book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

Here’s an exerpt of what Dr. Ott discusses as the theological levels of dogamatic certainty:

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty
  1. Code: 
       The highest degree of certainty appertains to the **immediately revealed truths**. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (**fides divina**), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (**fides catholica**). If Truths are defined by a **solemn judgment** of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "**de fide definita**."
  2. Code: 
       Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the **infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided**, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (**fides ecclesiastica**). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
The two levels of theological certainty discussed above are infallible. Note that a solemn definition by the Church is not required for a doctrine to be considered fides ecclesiastica.

For example, the doctrine that Mary bore her Son without violation of her virginal integrity is de fide dogma (infallible) according to Dr. Ott, based not upon a solemn definition of such by the Church (de fide definita), but upon the general promulgation of doctrine (fides ecclesiastica).

Dr. Ott continues…
  1. Code: 
       A Teaching proximate to Faith (**sententia fidei proxima**) is a doctrine, which is **regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet** been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
And example of the above level of theological certainty would be the perpetual sinlessness of Mary. It is a *certain *teaching of the Catholic Church. Yet, it has not yet been solemnly defined as de fide, FURTHERMORE within the general promulgation of the doctrine, Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults. Yet, this is a certain (yet not infallible) truth taught by the ordinary universal exercise of the authentic Magisterium, so it is not a “doubtful matter” and as such requires at least our religious assent.

to be continued …
 
Further from Dr. Ott:
  1. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
The above four levels of theological certainty do not belong to the field of free opinions. A Catholic owes at least their religious assent to all the doctrines exhibiting the above levels of certainty, and their assent of faith to the de fide dogmas.

Dr. Ott next discusses those levels of theological certainty that belong to the field of free opinion:
  1. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
  2. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus).** The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice.** By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
Competent expertise belongs to the authentic Magisterium, not a nun … non Fr. Charles Curran or his many dissenting clones.

In my opinion, I’d say that the position that one can use artificial birth control is heretical at worst, and a tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata) at best. Conversely, the doctrine taught by *Humanae Vitae *is at most *fides ecclesiastica *(infallible),and at worst ***sententia fidei proxima.***In the final analysis, the doctrine taught by Humanae Vitae is in no way among the field of free opinions with regard to levels of dogmatic certainty.

Dr. Ott’s book outlines the dogmas of Catholicism, explains the Scriptural and Traditional basis, and labels each as to which level of theological certainly they fall within (in Dr. Ott’s fallible yet, quite informed judgment). It’s not an easy read, but more of an encyclopedic reference. His book has been praised as trustworthy source of dogmatic theology since first published in 1952.
 
*How do you know which doctrines belong to which level? *

Your average Catholic does not have a doctorate in dogmatic theology, and so is no where near competent to make the distinction.

In practice, this is not an issue except for academics who love to argue over such things. In non-academic circles, an obedient Catholic ought to simply assent to all that the lawfully ordained pastors teach as part of the ordinary universal doctrines of Catholicism.

In RCIA, we ought not to leave the impression that Catholics can be disobedient to our prelates without guilt of sin.

**Heb 13:17

“Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”**Pope Piux IX:
**

And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Denzinger 1698)**
 
Can a person with a perfectly formed conscience ever have a conscience that is in conflict with the moral truths that are taught by the Catholic Church? This is the real question, and the answer is, no, that is not possible.

It is, however, not just possible, but probable, that one will have a conscience in need of formation. This is true because we are all children of the Fall, and we all struggle with our concupiscence, our disordered desire to prefer that which is sinful instead of that which is true.

A person with an imperfectly formed conscience still needs to obey his conscience, but he also has the duty, and the obligation, to form his conscience so that it conforms to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, many Catholics think that the formation of conscience is about listenting to one’s feelings, and that is where all the foolishness begins. A faithful Catholic listens to what the Magisterium teaches, and he obeys what she teaches because he believes by the gift of faith that Christ’s Church is incapable of teaching error in matters of morality. Nowhere does the Catholic Church that trusting ones’ feelings is the infallible guide to the formation of conscience. The Church, in fact, teaches the opposite; that we must discipline ourselves to accept church teaching even if we would prefer to do the opposite of what the Church teaches. We must wage war against our feelings to overcome our concupiscence!

For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
Gal. 5:17
 
What exactly is assent??
  1. Does this mean I must be in total intellectual agreement with everything pronounced by the Magisterium?
    If so, then I need not think about anything in terms of morals. My only duty is to learn what the Church teaches, understand it if possible and in any case to follow the teaching.
  2. Or, is it sufficient for me to accept the authority of Magisterium pronouncements even if I am in doubt about or in disagreement with them intellectually, so long as I obey them?
    If so, one could consider the Church as analagous to, say, the Army. I am bound to accept the orders of my superiors and carry them out, even if I think they are unwise or unwarranted.
 
Good question.

CCC **892 “**Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

What is “assent of faith”? (Required of *de fide *dogmas).

What is “religious assent”? (Required of teachings of the ordinary Magisterium)

My understanding is that “assent of faith” is one that involves concurrence from my intellect and will, whereas “religious assent” involves concurrence from my will, but not necessarily from my intellect.

If my understanding is correct, your military analogy is right on. I can and should say “But, Father …”, when I believe it is prudent to do so, but when Father says “I understand your point, but my decision is this …” then I ought to conform my will to the will of the Father (so long as he is manifestly in agreement with higher authority, that is).

I’m looking for ecclesiastical sources to confirm the above understanding.

Has anybody else looked into this before? Got any source documentation?
 
PilgrimJWT

What exactly is assent??

It is the assent of the intellect and will.

Does this mean I must be in total intellectual agreement with everything pronounced by the Magisterium?

No, it means that you assent to those teachings (i.e. you make the decision to be obedient). You can assent to a teaching out of faithfulness to the church before you actually understand the teaching of the church.

Many Catholics witness that they never understood the reasons for the Catholic teaching of NFP until after they lived the teaching. It was only after they gave their assent and lived in obedience that they came to understand why the Church has this teaching. Assent often precedes understanding, and one needs understanding to reach agreement. The problem with many Catholics is that they won’t obey unless they understand, and they will never understand until they obey.

*If so, then I need not think about anything in terms of morals. My only duty is to learn what the Church teaches, understand it if possible and in any case to follow the teaching. *

The Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of morality. If you never understood why she teaches a particular moral truth, but obeyed her teachings, you would be doing the right thing. But again, obedience often precedes understanding. A Catholic has the duty to study his faith and to make the intellectual effort to understand his faith. He also has the duty to pray to God for enlightenment when he is struggling with understanding of Church teaching. God promises that if we ask, we will find.

It is quite possible to make the decision NOT to understand church teaching, and God will not force his will upon someone who has decided to not understand church teaching.

Or, is it sufficient for me to accept the authority of Magisterium pronouncements even if I am in doubt about or in disagreement with them intellectually, so long as I obey them?

Doubt can be either involuntary or cultivated.

CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. *Involuntary doubt * refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
*If so, one could consider the Church as analagous to, say, the Army. I am bound to accept the orders of my superiors and carry them out, even if I think they are unwise or unwarranted. *

No, it is not analogous. The Army has not been given the charism of infallibilty in matters of morality. A Catholic must be obedient to Church teachings, and if the Army is in conflict with those teachings, he must be disobedient to the Army and suffer the consequences if necessary. “I was only following orders” is not an excuse for immorality when following immoral orders from the Army.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has been given the gift of infallibilty. If one obeys out of obedience the Catholic Church’s teachings about morality, one will always be doing what is correct. The same cannot be said about blindly following orders from the Army.
 
Hmmm… seems my understanding isn’t quite correct …

Canon 752 "While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
The canon uses the technical expression *religiosum obsequium intellectu et voluntatis," *… An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but “submission” is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as “respect,” “deference,” “concurrence,” “adherence,” “compliance,” or “allegiance” would be better translations of obsequium.

(*New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, *J.P. Beal, et al, ed., New York: Paulist Pres, 2000)
Click to expand...
The above commentary goes on to describe religious assent as “respectful religious deference of intellect and will” as in contrast to complete “absolute or unconditional obedience” of intellect and will.

Professor of theology, William May explains:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html
It is interesting to note that the term “dissent” did not appear in theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. … the obsequium religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly proposed … recognized that a theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of “withholding assent” and raising questions, but this is a far cry from “dissent.”

… **The **Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.
Click to expand...
This is a far different a response than that of Fr. Charles Curran, who staged a public demonstration in opposition to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
 
The Church is the Body of Christ on earth. He didn’t give us the analogy of the Vine and the Branches on a whim. Abiding in Him means to be connected, to be partakers in His precious, divine life…to be part of His living Body, which is the Church. If we choose to separate ourselves (following our consciences over anything the Church recommends), then we will not have life within us.

What that nun is teaching seems to encourage an attitude of “they couldn’t possibly understand MY situation, therefore, my situation (my ‘conscience’) takes precedence over what the Church is teaching, because I know better.”

As a Catholic who believes wholeheartedly in the Church (Jesus here on earth), my conscience tells me to follow what is taught as dogma, and what is given in encyclicals, because Jesus is asking that of me. I can’t pick and choose according to what is convenient. Some of these things may be difficult…some may require sacrifice, but if my Lord (through the Church) is asking me to do it, then so be it.

If He were standing in front of me and I were to reject an encyclical (or any part of it), what would He say to me?

Mary
 
**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2051 ** The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

If one believes the above, one can claim to be a Catholic. If one does not believe the above, one is, at best, a Protestant.

All Protestants reject the belief that the Magisterium of the Pastors is infallible in matters of moral doctrine. That is why Protestants allow artificial contraception, divorce, etc …
 
40.png
Melchior:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not a cheap shot, it just is - as far as I know most Protestants are quite proud of their individualism - a ‘personal relationship with Christ’ I think they usually call it.
Individualism is the foundation of their rebellion to authority. Is there a Protestant sect that defers to the authority of Rome or even that recognizes any universal authority on doctrine? I suppose Angelicans would be one to think of it, they recognize a universal authority on doctorine, just not Rome correct?
As I understand most Protestants believe they can interpret the Bible according to the own consciences, they may or may not follow anyone elses guidance. They usually defer to a Pastor of some sort, but rarely any larger structure than their own church.
This attitude leads to the nonsense we have now - moral relativism - I get to make up my own ‘mind’ as to what the truth is.
Liberalism, egalitarianism, moral relativism are all fruits of the radical individualism tree - thank you Luther.
 
Ok so one more question for the experts - if I read an papal encyclical, which I love to do - I read all the ones I can get my hands on - what am I reading?

I had a poster tell me that what was written in encyclicals in say 1890 was irrelevant today - that don’t sound right.
 
40.png
kjvail:
I had a poster tell me that what was written in encyclicals in say 1890 was irrelevant today - that don’t sound right.
Click to expand...
Are Peter’s two letters to the church irrelevant because they are two thousand years old?
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Are Peter’s two letters to the church irrelevant because they are two thousand years old?
Click to expand...
To play devil’s advocate you could say that’s a different matter entirely from a papal encyclical.
I’m not saying that’s what I think, but I think that might be the answer you’d get.
Objectively stated there is a difference between scripture and an encyclical.
I don’t know how *much *of a difference tho, that’s kind of the point of my question LOL.
 
Peter’s letters are among the inspired and inerrant written Word of God.

The Pope’s letter are never asserted to be among the inspired and inerrant written Word of God.
Ok so one more question for the experts - if I read an papal encyclical, which I love to do - I read all the ones I can get my hands on - what am I reading?

I had a poster tell me that what was written in encyclicals in say 1890 was irrelevant today - that don’t sound right.
Click to expand...
**Ecclesiastical documents of the past are neither irrelevant today, nor is the authentic living Magisterium strictly bound by the the ecclesiastical documents of the past. The Magisterium has the power to bind ***and to loose. Only de fide dogmas of Catholicism are immutable. *

From the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia - “Tradition and the Living Magisterium”:
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

The Ecclesiastical document of the past are not irrelevant, because …
Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are … a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. … In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of the Church the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of the Church. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds.
Click to expand...
to be continued …
 
Yet, revealed truths (*de fide *dogmas), are immutable…
Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. (ibid)
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, ecclesiastical documents themselves are not inerrant…
Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to express revealed truth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of today with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. (ibid)
Click to expand...
The athentic interpretation of Sacred Scritpure and Sacred Tradition is vested in the living Magisterium…
The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–**she judges them more than she is judged by them. **
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top