Religion and Science!

[buffalo]

I am not disputing the immense value of the Catechism for which I have great respect but I do not feel compelled to accept every sentence as an infallible dogma! If I am mistaken then I am undoubtedly a heretic - although consoled by the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our conscience…

an objective fully informed conscience…not a conscience of convenience.

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure what significance it would have whether something is infallible dogma or not, for you as a Catholic, tony.

Questioning whether something’s infallible is akin to the cheekiness of a child telling his parents, “Well, unless you really, really, mean it, I’m not going to pick up my toys!”

In my opinion Catholics are not expected to have **blind **faith and obedience like little children…

The very fact that the Church has singled out infallible doctrines implies the contrary.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not disputing the immense value of the Catechism for which I have great respect but I do not feel compelled to accept every sentence as an infallible dogma! If I am mistaken then I am undoubtedly a heretic - although consoled by the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our conscience…

1. Who decides whether a person’s conscience is fully informed?
2. What are the criteria of a fully informed conscience?
3. How is convenience relevant to beliefs which are not related to moral decisions?

 

[PRmerger]

In my opinion Catholics are not expected to have **blind **faith and obedience like little children…

The very fact that the Church has singled out infallible doctrines implies the contrary.

My children do not have blind faith and obedience. But they do have faith and obedience to DH and me.

No one is proposing that Catholics ought to have a blind faith or obedience.

That is a strawman.

Questioning whether something is infallibly taught vs simple doctrine is the absolute wrong question for any Catholic to ask (at least as it applies in this context.)

Apologist Mark Shea rather cheekily calls it the “Minimum Daily Requirement” question.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ

I view it similarly to the way my children might ask me, “Am I bound to pick up all my socks, or just the ones under my bed?”

 

[tonyrey]

My children do not have blind faith and obedience. But they do have faith and obedience to DH and me.

No one is proposing that Catholics ought to have a blind faith or obedience.

That is a strawman.

Questioning whether something is infallibly taught vs simple doctrine is the absolute wrong question for any Catholic to ask (at least as it applies in this context.)

Apologist Mark Shea rather cheekily calls it the “Minimum Daily Requirement” question.
No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to ChristI view it similarly to the way my children might ask me, “Am I bound to pick up all my socks, or just the ones under my bed?”

The analogy with children implies that adults must accept every statement in the Catechism without question even though they consider it to be misguided yet doctrines have developed precisely because Catholics have carefully considered and discussed the full implications of Christian teaching in the light of Biblical exegesis, scientific progress, social changes and psychological discoveries…

 

[buffalo]

1. Who decides whether a person’s conscience is fully informed?
2. What are the criteria of a fully informed conscience?
3. How is convenience relevant to beliefs which are not related to moral decisions?

MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
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.50 1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of *interiority *is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the* prudent judgment* of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
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.
1784 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.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 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.55

 

[PRmerger]

The analogy with children implies that adults must accept every statement in the Catechism

Yes!

without question

No!

Even obedient children are allowed to question.

But if the analogy with children is not pleasing to you, what about Mark Shea’s lover analogy?

Would you find it pleasing if your beloved asked you for each thing you profess to her, “Are you telling me this with 100% certainty or can I ignore this one?”

 

[tonyrey]

                             **MORAL CONSCIENCE**

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
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.50 1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of *interiority *is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the* prudent judgment* of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53]

This is a very important point…

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
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.
1784 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.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 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.55

The final sentence puts it in a nutshell:

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 - but we alone are ultimately responsible for our decisions. The buck stops with us.

 

[buffalo]

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 - but we alone are ultimately responsible for our decisions. The buck stops with us.

Yup.:yup:

 

[tonyrey]

Even obedient children are allowed to question.

But if the analogy with children is not pleasing to you, what about Mark Shea’s lover analogy?

Would you find it pleasing if your beloved asked you for each thing you profess to her, “Are you telling me this with 100% certainty or can I ignore this one?”

The beloved is Jesus who speaks to each of us individually and directly through our conscience.

Doctrines have developed precisely because Catholics have carefully considered and discussed the full implications of Christian teaching in the light of Biblical exegesis, scientific progress, social changes and psychological discoveries…

 

[PRmerger]

The beloved is Jesus who speaks to each of us individually and directly through our conscience.

Was it the Church who told you this?

Doctrines have developed precisely because Catholics have carefully considered and discussed the full implications of Christian teaching in the light of Biblical exegesis, scientific progress, social changes and psychological discoveries…

True, but a non-sequitur, tony.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Is the teaching of the Catechism on Adam and Eve and original sin doubtful or is it authoritative?

If there were no Adam and Eve, why would there have to be original sin? If we don’t have to believe in one, why should we have to believe in the other? That way lies theological mayhem and madness. Everyone gets to treat all theology as metaphor and to hell with the Catechism?

I don’t think so.

 

[tonyrey]

The beloved is Jesus who speaks to each of us individually

1. Do you believe there is no scope whatsoever for differences of opinion among Catholics about issues whichiare not fundamental teachings of the Church?
2. Do you ever make your own decisions after having discovered there is disagreement among Catholics about an issue which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?
3. Do you reject the need for prayer after having discovered there is disagreement among Catholics about an issue which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?
4. Do you reject the belief that Jesus speaks to each of us individually through our conscience after we have prayed for guidance after having discovered there is disagreement among Catholics about an issue which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?
5. If you were in a position to do so would you excommunicate any Catholic who does not accept every statement in the Catechism which is not a fundamental teaching of the Church?

Doctrines have developed precisely because Catholics have carefully considered and discussed the full implications of Christian teaching in the light of Biblical exegesis, scientific progress, social changes and psychological discoveries…

True, but a non-sequitur, tony.

Please explain why.

 

[tonyrey]

We are **assisted **

Thanks for your support.

It is misguided to believe we can find all the answers to our questions and all the solutions to our problems in the teaching of the Church without ever having to use our God-given powers of reason and discernment. We are not here to behave like spoon-fed babies but to think and act as responsible, independent individuals who come to our own conclusions, make our own decisions and shape our own destiny…

 

[inocente]

Random thoughts from a non-Catholic on the last few pages of posts.

1. 
   *]The CCC meets modern standards by stating its objectives up front: CCC 12 *This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful. *
   
   *]Imho those objectives do not give license to use the work as ammunition on what makes a true Scotsman.
   
   *]Romans 14: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
   
   *]Ten nights to Midnight Mass.
   
   *]The kids don’t like it when the parents quarrel.

 

[inocente]

When one approaches death, as Flew was doing in his eighties and at the time of writing There Is a God, what in God’s name would be wrong with wishful thinking?

Approaching death is the same whether we’re in our teens or eighties. Any of us could be taken at any time, it’s no excuse to indulge in wishful thinking. In any case those of us not in our eighties don’t need to accept any wishful thinking from those who are.

And why do you object to the power of his writing, when as a Baptist you should also be objecting to the poor quality of the arguments he formerly used to advance atheism?

I’ve not heard of this rule book which tells me what arguments I should and shouldn’t accept.Could you link it? Does it contain a compelling argument on why I should accept its commands?

I don’t know anyone whose mind has been changed by an argument for or against theism. All these arguments have faults, but some are logically more sound than others. The popular (at least on CAF) design argument is always going to be a hostage to fortune. “I can’t explain how x occurred naturally, so I conclude x must have been designed, therefore there must be a designer” is basically a bet rather than an argument, since just because I can’t explain doesn’t mean no one else can in future. And of course it tells us little about the designer (an alien robot?), or even if the designer is still around. Whereas Flew’s early Theology and Falsification is imho a little nugget, not really pro-atheism as such but about what can reasonably be asserted, in the end, by anyone.

 

[PRmerger]

The kids don’t like it when the parents quarrel.

Heh. If I’ve said this at work once, I’ve said it a thousand times to parents, “There is nothing wrong with quarreling in front of your children. It will not put them on the psychiatrist’s couch years from now if they see you disagree today. ” Granted, as long as the quarreling is civilized and no one’s throwing things or making unsavory comments.

 

[inocente]

Heh. If I’ve said this at work once, I’ve said it a thousand times to parents, “There is nothing wrong with quarreling in front of your children. It will not put them on the psychiatrist’s couch years from now if they see you disagree today. ” Granted, as long as the quarreling is civilized and no one’s throwing things or making unsavory comments.

How about when the parents take the kids to the mall to watch them quarrel in front of an audience?

 

[Contarini]

While StAnastasia’s answer is correct in that anyone can deny Catholic teachings; however, the question above does not address those Catholics who prefer science as their reference point for spiritual truths. It addresses those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church.

But the Catholic Church does not teach that the first three chapters of Genesis are literal. Pope Pius XII made this very clear in Humani Generis.

Your premise, therefore, it utterly inaccurate, and you are working from your own private interpretation of Catholicism.

They also know that the Catholic Deposit of Faith takes precedence over modernist, independent, personal interpretations of Scripture. (The word modernist refers to those who wish to change Catholic doctrines to conform to the modern material world.)

Indeed. Fundamentalism such as yours is a form of modernism. You are trying to make Scripture into a kind of science textbook, adapting it to the concerns of the modern world which thinks science is ultimate truth, rather than reading it theologically in accord with the historic teaching of the Church.

And yes, I know that many Christians throughout the centuries have taken Genesis 1-3 quite literally. Others have not. The particular way in which a literal interpretation is pushed by modern fundamentalists, though, fits the description I gave in the previous paragraph.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

contarini

Indeed. Fundamentalism such as yours is a form of modernism. You are trying to make Scripture into a kind of science textbook, adapting it to the concerns of the modern world which thinks science is ultimate truth, rather than reading it theologically in accord with the historic teaching of the Church.

The historic teaching of the Church is that Adam and Eve existed and committed the original sin, the reason why we are all baptized.

If there were no Adam and Eve, what is your explanation for the original sin? Or have the Episcopalians thrown that out too?