Pope Francis tells Congress ‘every life is sacred,’ says the death penalty should be abolished

[sarah_j]

… man must follow the certain dictates of conscience even if doing so is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

But I think that you keep leaving out the most important point…that man must make
every effort to properly form his conscience.

from the Catholic Catechism -
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

 

[Thomas_White]

I think you are referring to natural and revealed .
And grace.
Truth is objective. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. So…and this is personal , obedience to my Church though I may not understand very well , may work as my inner compass .
Since we are all children of God , that Truth calls whether we realize it or not ,naturally. As a DNA that we are children of God from.the beginning.There is a bit of truth within us and in main religions and it is a search.
But since that One Voice calls ,and we follow as closely as we can ,we cannot go about condemning and pushing others ,but sharing the Good News which after all is that God loves us.
Rather basic ,sorry,but , how does that sound?
Ps be patient with me ,please ,itns a beautiful journey and we are together in it…

Yes, that sounds very good indeed. If you care to do so, also take a look at the second paragraph of #8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. It provides a dogmatic basis for continuing revelation. I believe you will find there its relevance to a certitude of conscience.

It seems very difficult or perhaps impossible for some to accept (or perhaps grasp) that a certain dictate of conscience can have moral authority over even that of a pope, but it is Catholic teaching. Reducing conscience to mean solely an understanding of teaching would render one’s conscience meaningless. I believe this involves is a misunderstanding of doctrine and again believe you will see why in the reference cited.

 

[Thomas_White]

But I think that you keep leaving out the most important point…that man must make
every effort to properly form his conscience.

No, actually I have not. It is what the word ‘certain’ means in my comment you cited (#116).

 

[graciew]

Yes, that sounds very good indeed. If you care to do so, also take a look at the second paragraph of #8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. It provides a dogmatic basis for continuing revelation. I believe you will find there its relevance to a certitude of conscience.

It seems very difficult or perhaps impossible for some to accept (or perhaps grasp) that a certain dictate of conscience can have moral authority over even that of a pope, but it is Catholic teaching. Reducing conscience to mean solely an understanding of teaching would render one’s conscience meaningless. I believe this involves is a misunderstanding of doctrine and again believe you will see why in the reference cited.

I ll do what you suggest now and let you know of my progress ! Thanks ,Thomas !

 

[Brendan]

Yes, that sounds very good indeed. If you care to do so, also take a look at the second paragraph of #8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. It provides a dogmatic basis for continuing revelation. I believe you will find there its relevance to a certitude of conscience.

Could you point out where Dei Verbum states that what has already been revealed and declared to be true by an Ecumenical Council will be declared to be false, either de facto or de jure?

 

[Thomas_White]

I ll do what you suggest now and let you know of my progress ! Thanks ,Thomas !

You are welcome. Conscience is innate, and most humans just know right from wrong. I think most often when a Catholic acts according to the dictates of conscience, it is in accord with the teachings of the Church–but not necessarily in every instance.

Dei Verbum provides a dogmatic teaching concerning the way the understanding of doctrine evolves with the temporal world and will continue to do so until the full revelation is revealed at the end of time and the Last Judgment. All of this is in accord with the theology of Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[LongingSoul]

I will try to explain my position. I was raised during the pre-Vatican II era by a family with strong and traditional Catholic beliefs and values. I attended Catholic schools for twelve years, also prior to Vatican II. I am certain this background formed my conscience. As a result, I have found no urgent need to study Church doctrine to discern right from wrong. My conscience tells me it would be wrong for me to participate in the execution of a prisoner, and I know this violates no Church teaching.

This is my experience also except I was born as the Cardinals and Bishops were packing their cardboard suitcases and booking their seats on the DC-10s or 747s to go to Rome for the opening moments of Vatican II.

You are right. We were very much formed by the culture of the Catholic community that without an internet full of information, trusted faithfully in the clergy and ultimately, the Pope to guide our faith.

The progressively frantic scramble to retreat to teaching documents of the previous 500 years to determine our current path, was the result of a rejection of the proper papal authority that formed the basis of Catholic cultural formation, in my opinion. The Pope has heavily denounced the growth of the ideologues in this way.

Today conscience formation is seen to come from reading the past documents of the Church in a very generic way sans the cultural context of the times… or worse still, finding a clique of strangers on the internet who interpret that for you.

Having done St Ignatius spiritual exercises, I can understand Pope Francis perspective somewhat and how conscience formation comes from contemplating the gospels, constant examination of the conscience and recognising the signs of holiness growing in oneself in day to day life as well as the falling away of the habitual sins we have come to tolerate.

That’s where true wisdom comes from.

 

[Suudy]

The progressively frantic scramble to retreat to teaching documents of the previous 500 years to determine our current path, was the result of a rejection of the proper papal authority that formed the basis of Catholic cultural formation, in my opinion. The Pope has heavily denounced the growth of the ideologues in this way.

I’ll say from my experience as a convert that the lack of teaching documents or a lack of faithfulness to those documents drove me out of Protestantism. Before my transition into the Catholic Church I was attending an Episcopalian parish. I was getting much more serious about my faith at that point and while attending confirmation classes asked the instructor, “What does the church teach?” His response? “We aren’t defined by what we believe, but how we worship.” There were no positions on any moral or social issue at all. It was a free-for-all. Just show up, do the liturgy, and go home. It was an empty faith, without any real ties to reality. It told me nothing about my relationship to the world, to my fellow parishoners, my family, my co-workers, my fellow man.

In my experience, the fact that there is defined doctrine through the teaching authority of the Church was the first pull for me. There was substance. There was something outside of myself. The appeal to individual conscience to determine morality seems utterly selfish to me. I am not the authority. The **Church **(through Christ) is.

And when my conscience and the Church do not agree on some particular issue, my conscience convicts me to obedience. I may not understand (and indeed, with regard to our Mother, I struggled mightily), but I obey. My conscience called me to obedience much more strongly than my conscience did on any other issue.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’ll say from my experience as a convert that the lack of teaching documents or a lack of faithfulness to those documents drove me out of Protestantism. Before my transition into the Catholic Church I was attending an Episcopalian parish. I was getting much more serious about my faith at that point and while attending confirmation classes asked the instructor, “What does the church teach?” His response? “We aren’t defined by what we believe, but how we worship.” There were no positions on any moral or social issue at all. It was a free-for-all. Just show up, do the liturgy, and go home. It was an empty faith, without any real ties to reality. It told me nothing about my relationship to the world, to my fellow parishoners, my family, my co-workers, my fellow man.

In my experience, the fact that there is defined doctrine through the teaching authority of the Church was the first pull for me. There was substance. There was something outside of myself. The appeal to individual conscience to determine morality seems utterly selfish to me. I am not the authority. The **Church **(through Christ) is.

And when my conscience and the Church do not agree on some particular issue, my conscience convicts me to obedience. I may not understand (and indeed, with regard to our Mother, I struggled mightily), but I obey. My conscience called me to obedience much more strongly than my conscience did on any other issue.

That is very good, and the teachings of the Church draw directly from doctrine. But is very important to realize that it is Catholic dogma that an understanding of doctrine evolves with the temporal world. This does not mean there is no Absolute Truth but only that we don’t yet know it–but revelation will continue until the end of time. I believe conscience is important because each person is solely responsible for their own eternal salvation, and for this reason no other person should claim ultimate spiritual responsibility for anyone else.

I explained in an earlier comment that I too was raised in the traditional Catholic faith and was educated in Catholic schools. There was religion class every single school day for those twelve years, and the result was two-fold, I think. The experience formed my conscience, and the only reason I don’t normally need to study doctrine to discern right from wrong is because I already know Church doctrine in every instance I can think of right now. This is hardly to say that others need not study doctrine or rely on it.

With respect to capital punishment, society has most certainly advanced since the Council of Trent. It seems clear to me that in an advanced society such as the U.S., the absolute necessity to execute a prisoner is virtually non-existent and that the declarations of Trent are no longer relevant in a changing world. This is what my own conscience tells me, and, importantly here, I can’t see where it differs from Catholic teaching.

 

[Thomas_White]

Could you point out where Dei Verbum states that what has already been revealed and declared to be true by an Ecumenical Council will be declared to be false, either de facto or de jure?

No one has said that what has already been revealed and declared true will be declared false, and ‘Dei Verbum’ does not provide it either. What it does in relevant part say is as follows:

“For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities of the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities they experience, and of the preaching of those who have received through Episcopol 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 fullfillment in her.”

–Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ‘Dei Verbum’, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965 (Chapter II, 8)

The above quotation is in reference to Apostolic preaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ll say from my experience as a convert that the lack of teaching documents or a lack of faithfulness to those documents drove me out of Protestantism. Before my transition into the Catholic Church I was attending an Episcopalian parish. I was getting much more serious about my faith at that point and while attending confirmation classes asked the instructor, “What does the church teach?” His response? “We aren’t defined by what we believe, but how we worship.” There were no positions on any moral or social issue at all. It was a free-for-all. Just show up, do the liturgy, and go home. It was an empty faith, without any real ties to reality. It told me nothing about my relationship to the world, to my fellow parishoners, my family, my co-workers, my fellow man.

In my experience, the fact that there is defined doctrine through the teaching authority of the Church was the first pull for me. There was substance. There was something outside of myself. The appeal to individual conscience to determine morality seems utterly selfish to me. I am not the authority. The **Church **(through Christ) is.

And when my conscience and the Church do not agree on some particular issue, my conscience convicts me to obedience. I may not understand (and indeed, with regard to our Mother, I struggled mightily), but I obey. My conscience called me to obedience much more strongly than my conscience did on any other issue.

I also understand the desire to submit to a higher teaching authority than myself (hence my signature line), but I’m equally as drawn and formed by the gift of free will and the part that conscience plays in not only conforming ourselves to Gods will but in developing a genuine love for God.

We can’t fully know the mind of God but we can understand in some measure why He gave us this capacity to choose Him but also to reject Him. Why wouldn’t He just make us all obey automatically? Isn’t that what He really wants? Everybodies obedience?

But when we think about our own desire for love and search for that marital love, we know how inferior is the love of someone who we’ve obliged or somehow conned into relationship. And we also know the magnificence of the love of someone who has grown to know us intimately, all the good and bad, and still chooses to love us. We would rather be alone than have the obedience of automaton type human. In that way you can understand why God would prefer that someone follows an erroneous conscience in acting, than to mindlessly obey rules out of fear or obligation. I mean the Church is here to help us grow in conscience at the end of the day… not to make us mindlessly submit to rules.

 

[Brendan]

I also understand the desire to submit to a higher teaching authority than myself (hence my signature line), but I’m equally as drawn and formed by the gift of free will and the part that conscience plays in not only conforming ourselves to Gods will but in developing a genuine love for God…

So would you accept a person who, according to their conscience, executes criminals.

That too would be an exercise of their free will and their conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

Could you point out where Dei Verbum states that what has already been revealed and declared to be true by an Ecumenical Council will be declared to be false, either de facto or de jure?

No one has said that what has already been revealed and declared true will be declared false, and 'Dei Verbum does not provide it either. What it does in relevant part say in Chapter II, 8, is as follows:

“8. And so the Apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities of the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities they experience, and of the preaching of those who have received through Episcopol 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 fullfillment in her.”

–Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ‘Dei Verbum’, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965

 

[Brendan]

That is very good, and the teachings of the Church draw directly from doctrine. But is very important to realize that it is Catholic dogma that an understanding of doctrine evolves with the temporal world. This does not mean there is no Absolute Truth but only that we don’t yet know it–but revelation will continue until the end of time…

Under what circumstances does this revelation reverse itself, so that a revealed truth no longer remains true.

 

[Thomas_White]

Under what circumstances does this revelation reverse itself, so that a revealed truth no longer remains true.

I am quite sure I do not know the fullness of divine revelation. I have provided the relevant quotation from ‘Dei Verbum’ above. It speaks for itself. What is your point, if I might ask?

 

[LongingSoul]

So would you accept a person who, according to their conscience, executes criminals.

That too would be an exercise of their free will and their conscience.

Oh absolutely! I rarely push back against the argument that the protection of American people would be in doubt if the death penalty was abolished. It is a fair argument and allowed for when Pope Benedict indicated that that position did not preclude the reception of Holy Communion. I’m not American and don’t feel qualified to argue on that call from afar.

What I push back against is the argument that says the death penalty is the divine right of the state to judge the soul of man regardless of the states primary role as arbiter of the common good. In serving the common good, the State serves justice. Not the other way around. If someone argues that executing a criminal because it is his divine right to do so over and above serving the common good… I will adamantly reject that that is Church teaching. It is mans ego.

 

[graciew]

Yes, that sounds very good indeed. If you care to do so, also take a look at the second paragraph of #8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. It provides a dogmatic basis for continuing revelation. I believe you will find there its relevance to a certitude of conscience.

It seems very difficult or perhaps impossible for some to accept (or perhaps grasp) that a certain dictate of conscience can have moral authority over even that of a pope, but it is Catholic teaching. Reducing conscience to mean solely an understanding of teaching would render one’s conscience meaningless. I believe this involves is a misunderstanding of doctrine and again believe you will see why in the reference cited.

Ok.
First,my reading is that Ratzinger ( as in a previous quote) would not cross the line into defiance of a Pope.
Neither did St Paul when addressing Peter as Cephas ,acknowledging under this name his authority ,and rebuked Peter over a discipline.

Understanding may have two instances. A natural one and one illuminated by faith.
I would not reduce any of them,cause we cannot be pushed,but grace has its pace. So while my priest " understands" the same chapter we read as I do, his " understanding" under the light of faith may be much deeper and more complete.

As it is presented,it sounds that sb 's moral authority would compete with that of the Church. That intuitively rattles me cause building is cooperative,and good tends to unity and not division. So we must be talking about " adding" for the good of all.
In the private sphere,that sacred ground where God dwells within us,is a place we cannot break into at will in others. And since faith is something so dear to us all,we must be careful not to shatter it carelessly in others at whatever stage of the journey a person may be.

Jesus cannot be understood without his Church. If you ask,a choice of the will to lovingly be obedient to Church teaching would not fail. Cause ultimately " Love God above all things and your neighbour as yourself" is a call to walk within our family.,in Christ for Christ.

I ll take some more time with " development" . We can get sort of defensive just by the thought it s got to be right now and all of a sudden. And it may ultimately mean closer to our roots and our sources.
Feel free to correct me.I am thinking aloud among friends.

 

[graciew]

PS: I miss Brother Jay especially in this sort of discussions. He would come in and state a few points and that would be it to have it very clear.
In any case he would always remind us : ." …because it is the loving thing to do" .

 

[Thomas_White]

Ok.
First,my reading is that Ratzinger ( as in a previous quote) would not cross the line into defiance of a Pope.
Neither did St Paul when addressing Peter as Cephas ,acknowledging under this name his authority ,and rebuked Peter over a discipline.

Understanding may have two instances. A natural one and one illuminated by faith.
I would not reduce any of them,cause we cannot be pushed,but grace has its pace. So while my priest " understands" the same chapter we read as I do, his " understanding" under the light of faith may be much deeper and more complete.

As it is presented,it sounds that sb 's moral authority would compete with that of the Church. That intuitively rattles me cause building is cooperative,and good tends to unity and not division. So we must be talking about " adding" for the good of all.
In the private sphere,that sacred ground where God dwells within us,is a place we cannot break into at will in others. And since faith is something so dear to us all,we must be careful not to shatter it carelessly in others at whatever stage of the journey a person may be.

Jesus cannot be understood without his Church. If you ask,a choice of the will to lovingly be obedient to Church teaching would not fail. Cause ultimately " Love God above all things and your neighbour as yourself" is a call to walk within our family.,in Christ for Christ.

I ll take some more time with " development" . We can get sort of defensive just by the thought it s got to be right now and all of a sudden. And it may ultimately mean closer to our roots and our sources.
Feel free to correct me.I am thinking aloud among friends.

Well, the quote from Ratziner begins this way: “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

The way I understand this it does not involve a defiance of the pope at all, particularly not when it was said by Ratzinger, himself a future pope. He says the dictates of conscience must be obeyed–this is not defiance. He elaborates by later saying that “it is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact once must do so.” This is not a new teaching. Aquinas wrote that a person who does not follow the dictates of his or her conscience “is certainly condemned.”

What does it mean then when Ratzinger says it could very well in instances have been wrong “to have come to such askew convictions in the first place”? Why one must nevertheless follow those askew convictions is not clear. I don’t know the answer except one had better be right in their convictions, and this would result from an informed conscience.

With respect to capital punishment, we see on the thread that there are those who strongly believe Church teaching permits it. My conscience dictates that it would be wrong for me to do so. This is not the result from studying doctrine but rather a sense or feeling where I just know it would be wrong of me to participate in this. This does not even violate Church teaching, let alone defy the pope. My sense of it is that U.S. society is now sufficiently advanced to the extent it is no longer absolutely necessary to execute a prisoner, but also that this might not be the case everywhere and always. So the question becomes would participating in an execution be wrong? My conscience tell me it would be wrong for me. This again does not defy the pope or violate Church teaching, and here conscience does not speak of any other person. It is a question I cannot answer that way.

Concerning the dictates of conscience, I do not believe conscience should be rendered null by the circular logic that conscience must always conform to Church teaching. What then is conscience? And I do not believe this is Church teaching either. Why might this be the case? Perhaps it is because each person must in the end stand alone for judgment. That the Church would insist its teaching must always be followed, when what is at stake is a person’s eternal salvation, would seem very problematic. Who could say a person might not sense or grasp something very meaningful?

 

[Brendan]

I am quite sure I do not know the fullness of divine revelation. I have provided the relevant quotation from ‘Dei Verbum’ above. It speaks for itself. What is your point, if I might ask?

If we know, for example, a particular truth that has been revealed to us, under what circumstances does Dei Verbum allow for that truth to be declared as being false?

Ephesus, for example, declared Mary to the Mother of God (as opposed to just being the Mother of the human nature of the Second Person of the Trinity). Could the continued revelation that Dei Verbum refers to allow the Church to declare that Mary was NOT the Mother of the one personhood of Christ, both Human and Divine Natures. Assuming of course, that some future circumstance changed.

Could continued revelation mentioned in Dei Verbum change what a Council had determined to be true in a matter of Faith and Morals to such an extent that the opposite hold true?