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

[esieffe]

Is the USA really a Christian country? Apart from probably Malta and possibly Poland, are there any other countries in the West that can really be described sd Christian countries? Are countries in the West governed by laws that are Christian in nature? By their fruits you shall know them.

Good point. If we were a Christian Country perhaps we would have done away with the DP years ago like much of the civilized world has. As it is, we are still close followers of the culture of death.

 

[Thomas_White]

I will challenge Thomas, or others, who might claim that it is a violation of the 5th Commandment to do so. I am heartened that he looked to the Church for clarification on the 5th Commandment, and hopeful that he will accept what Trent has declared to be so.

I would not participate in the execution of a prisoner. It’s that simple, and it violates no teaching of the Church.

What difference would it make if I were to accept what the Council of Trent declared?

 

[sarah_j]

As I noted, Pope Benedict XVI would disagree that conscience must be in agreement with Church teaching.

That doesn’t make sense.

What if my conscience tells me I should worship with the Hari Krishnas?
Pope Benedict would say I need to follow my conscience ? Doubtful.

My guess is that he said a person must follow the dictates of a properly-formed conscience.…which
would be a conscience formed in accordance with Church teachings.

 

[Brendan]

As I noted, Pope Benedict XVI would disagree that conscience must be in agreement with Church teaching.

Yes, I own "On Conscience’ and consider it to be one of the best modern books on the subject.

And yes, then Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that the properly formed conscience is the one that follows most closely the Law of God.

He referenced Gaudium et Spes 16

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged

You can see that the primancy is NOT the conscience, but the Law written by God in the heart.

Pope Paul went on to say in the same article

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

Note that it is the conscience that can be in error, out of lack of knowledge or lack of care for goodness. This is why the conscience formed in accord with the teaching of the Church is superior, since the Church cannot be in error in Faith and Morals, any conscience that follows the dictates of the Church is freed from error.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, I own "On Conscience’ and consider it to be one of the best modern books on the subject.

And yes, then Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that the properly formed conscience is the one that follows most closely the Law of God.

He referenced Gaudium et Spes 16

You can see that the primancy is NOT the conscience, but the Law written by God in the heart.

Pope Paul went on to say in the same article

Note that it is the conscience that can be in error, out of lack of knowledge or lack of care for goodness. This is why the conscience formed in accord with the teaching of the Church is superior, since the Church cannot be in error in Faith and Morals, any conscience that follows the dictates of the Church is freed from error.

Primacy of conscience is not a statement on the objective rightness of an individuals conscience… it is an affirmation that the conscience is where man meets with God rather than in blind obedience to the Law.

Aquinas said …

“We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.”

newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5

The will that doesn’t align with the conscience, whether the conscience is right or wrong… is evil.

 

[Ender]

Pope Benedict XVI has said that a person must follow the certain dictates of his or her conscience even if it is contrary to Church teaching.

I have trouble accepting this assertion as it is contrary to what the church teaches. Can you provide a citation to prove your claim? Here, for example, is what JPII said on the subject: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…There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (Veritatis Splendor #32)
I will point out again: as well as saying a person must follow his own conscience, the church also says a person may be held accountable for the sins he commits when his conscience leads him astray.Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. (VS #60)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

That doesn’t make sense.

What if my conscience tells me I should worship with the Hari Krishnas?
Pope Benedict would say I need to follow my conscience ? Doubtful.

My guess is that he said a person must follow the dictates of a properly-formed conscience.…which
would be a conscience formed in accordance with Church teachings.

“…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 conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity, man is bound to follow his conscience…”

–Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, in vol. 5

 

[Suudy]

“…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 conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity, man is bound to follow his conscience…”

–Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, in vol. 5

I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying conscience shouldn’t be followed. The point is that following one’s conscience does not absolve one of any evil committed.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, I own "On Conscience’ and consider it to be one of the best modern books on the subject.

And yes, then Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that the properly formed conscience is the one that follows most closely the Law of God.

He referenced Gaudium et Spes 16

You can see that the primancy is NOT the conscience, but the Law written by God in the heart.

Pope Paul went on to say in the same article

Note that it is the conscience that can be in error, out of lack of knowledge or lack of care for goodness. This is why the conscience formed in accord with the teaching of the Church is superior, since the Church cannot be in error in Faith and Morals, any conscience that follows the dictates of the Church is freed from error.

I think this must be understood in relation to Section 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying conscience shouldn’t be followed. The point is that following one’s conscience does not absolve one of any evil committed.

Neither would following one’s interpretation of the declaration of Trent in the year 2015.

 

[Thomas_White]

I have trouble accepting this assertion as it is contrary to what the church teaches. Can you provide a citation to prove your claim? Here, for example, is what JPII said on the subject: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…There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (Veritatis Splendor #32)
I will point out again: as well as saying a person must follow his own conscience, the church also says a person may be held accountable for the sins he commits when his conscience leads him astray.Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. (VS #60)
Ender

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.

 

[Ender]

Neither would following one’s interpretation of the declaration of Trent in the year 2015.

If following one’s own conscience is the primary measure of a moral act, then, should I be convinced by the arguments, I could as justly follow the writings of the Marquis de Sade as the Council of Trent. If there is no external truth that takes precedence over my conscience then I am free to do whatever I feel is right, and if we have no obligation to follow Church teaching then no one is justified in condemning anything anyone does.

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.

True. This point is already acknowledged.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

If following one’s own conscience is the primary measure of a moral act, then, should I be convinced by the arguments, I could as justly follow the writings of the Marquis de Sade as the Council of Trent. If there is no external truth that takes precedence over my conscience then I am free to do whatever I feel is right, and if we have no obligation to follow Church teaching then no one is justified in condemning anything anyone does.
True. This point is already acknowledged.

Ender

I have explained the background of the formation of my conscience, and it did not involve the writings of the Marquis de Sade. I would say rather that the years of alter service at a young age during the era of the Tridentine Mass were an influence, and using the Marquis de Sade as an example is only setting up a straw man.

 

[Ender]

I have explained the background of the formation of my conscience, and it did not involve the writings of the Marquis de Sade. I would say rather that the years of alter service at a young age during the era of the Tridentine Mass were an influence, and using the Marquis de Sade as an example is only setting up a straw man.

I am trying to show how your position on the primacy of the conscience would apply if others acted accordingly. I am not suggesting anything about your own conscience. I am addressing solely the implications of the principle you have declared to be your own.

Can you condemn anything another person does if he asserts that he does it with a clear conscience?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I am trying to show how your position on the primacy of the conscience would apply if others acted accordingly. I am not suggesting anything about your own conscience. I am addressing solely the implications of the principle you have declared to be your own.

Can you condemn anything another person does if he asserts that he does it with a clear conscience?

Ender

Clearly, I cannot condemn anyone.

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself: And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5:26-27)

 

[Ender]

Clearly, I cannot condemn anyone.

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself: And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5:26-27)

You may not condemn the person, the question is whether you can even condemn the act if the only criterion for judging the moral nature of an act is the personal conscience of the person committing it.

Ender

 

[sarah_j]

Originally Posted by sarah j

That doesn’t make sense.

What if my conscience tells me I should worship with the Hari Krishnas?
Pope Benedict would say I need to follow my conscience ? Doubtful.

My guess is that he said a person must follow the dictates of a properly-formed conscience…which
would be a conscience formed in accordance with Church teachings.

“…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 conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity, man is bound to follow his conscience…”

–Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, in vol. 5

I found it hard to believe that Ratzinger wrote that and found this
enlightening article.
It seems that the statement you quoted is actually ** Ratzinger quoting Newman**.
*In the cited text, Ratzinger was referring to Newman’s ideas on conscience. >
*

“For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle.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.”

Ratzinger does say that we must follow our conscience but he also says **we must form them well: **

‘It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: “Free me from my unknown guilt” (Ps 19:13).’
— From a 1991 Keynote address titled ‘Conscience and Truth’ by Ratzinger at a workshop for bishops
( as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8036/how-does-pope-benedict-xvi-reconcile-conscience-and-authority

 

[Thomas_White]

Originally Posted by sarah j

I found it hard to believe that Ratzinger wrote that and found this
enlightening article.
It seems that the statement you quoted is actually ** Ratzinger quoting Newman**.
*In the cited text, Ratzinger was referring to Newman’s ideas on conscience. >
*

“For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle.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.”

Ratzinger does say that we must follow our conscience but he also says **we must form them well: **

‘It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: “Free me from my unknown guilt” (Ps 19:13).’
— From a 1991 Keynote address titled ‘Conscience and Truth’ by Ratzinger at a workshop for bishops
( as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8036/how-does-pope-benedict-xvi-reconcile-conscience-and-authority

If understood, this is consistent with what Joseph Ratziner has said since at least 1972, which is that man must follow the certain dictates of conscience even if doing so is contrary to the teaching of the Church. There are numerous references and citations where Pope Benedict XVI provides this teaching. He does not disagree at all with Cardinal Newman.

 

[Thomas_White]

“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 conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity, man is bound to follow his conscience…”

–Joseph Ratziner, 1967 (in: Commentary on the Documentments of Vatican II)

 

[graciew]

If understood, this is consistent with what Joseph Ratziner has said since at least 1972, which is that man must follow the certain dictates of conscience even if doing so is contrary to the teaching of the Church. There are numerous references and citations where Pope Benedict XVI provides this teaching. He does not disagree at all with Cardinal Newman.

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…