Teaching on consicence

[rgvalles98]

The church’s traditional teaching on conscience is that individuals must always follow their informed conscience, even if such a conscience-based decision be a variance with the teaching of the Magisterium. What is the church’s teaching on the conscience in recent magisterial documents and
we are suppose to relate our findings to a contemporary moral
theological presentation of conscience. I have looked into the documents of Vat 2, some papal encyclicals and I even looked into the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I thought these would be some good resources but it did not help. Or did I not look into the wrong areas…

 

[rgvalles98]

I am in a lay ministry group discussing the question on how the
Magisterium has claimed that the tradition has been constant in upholding the moral illegitimacy of artificial contraception. My question is what are the grounds for this argument against the moral permissibility of artificial contraception; and how would these arguments hold up with the recent writings of the recent popes; and what would be the pro and con for the use of artificial contraception? This question is over my head,my only salvation is I can use any source I want as long as I let my group know where I got my information.

 

[rgvalles98]

I am 61 Catholic man way over my head in a lay ministry workshop for our parish. From time to time we get group questions to work on for our next workshop. As a “Cradle Catholic” I am lost in my research for finding some answers for these questions. My only relief is we can use the Internet or any other source as long as we mention the source in our discussion group. Here’s my question; In moral theology the church has
traditionally based much of its teaching on social and sexual ethics on the natural law. What is the natural law? (My question) What is the church’s understanding of the natural law and what is the concrete historical examples and what are contemporary application. Which one of these are attached to a) sexual ethics or b) bioethics. If you have an answer please submit and where would I get references for this question?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am 61 Catholic man way over my head in a lay ministry workshop for our parish. From time to time we get group questions to work on for our next workshop. As a “Cradle Catholic” I am lost in my research for finding some answers for these questions. My only relief is we can use the Internet or any other source as long as we mention the source in our discussion group. Here’s my question; In moral theology the church has
traditionally based much of its teaching on social and sexual ethics on the natural law. What is the natural law? (My question) What is the church’s understanding of the natural law and what is the concrete historical examples and what are contemporary application. Which one of these are attached to a) sexual ethics or b) bioethics. If you have an answer please submit and where would I get references for this question?

there are many here who claim you are wrong from the beginning. The believe that the Church teaches that no conscience can by definition be well formed unless it is in agreement with the Magisterium. Thus there is no such thing as a personal conscience, at least as to anything that the Church gives a difinitive teaching on. You are merely to believe as told. If yuo dissent from Church teaching you are not Catholic in their opinion. I’m simply not up to another argument on it. See generally CCC #1776- 1802. There are moreover a good many statements by Pope JPII and Benedict that I think speak clearly that one is still responsible in the end for one’s own conscience, and cannot shift it to the church. A good many things are cited as proof tjat all are required to follow the Church without question, but are cited out of context often times and mostly they ignore the constant use of the word “guide” in reference to the Church, which is hardly a order to follow as told. You may also wish to examine a well thought out argument by a moral ethicist linked from my blog of Dec. 9. That also contains a reference to Pell in the UK and his very different take on it which I included in fairness. Be careful…people do tend to cherry pick what serves their opinion.

 

[Mousey]

This is a link to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia
Conscience
There is another thread that you might to look at
here

 

[vern_humphrey]

there are many here who claim you are wrong from the beginning. The believe that the Church teaches that no conscience can by definition be well formed unless it is in agreement with the Magisterium. Thus there is no such thing as a personal conscience, at least as to anything that the Church gives a difinitive teaching on. You are merely to believe as told. If yuo dissent from Church teaching you are not Catholic in their opinion. I’m simply not up to another argument on it. See generally CCC #1776- 1802. There are moreover a good many statements by Pope JPII and Benedict that I think speak clearly that one is still responsible in the end for one’s own conscience, and cannot shift it to the church. A good many things are cited as proof tjat all are required to follow the Church without question, but are cited out of context often times and mostly they ignore the constant use of the word “guide” in reference to the Church, which is hardly a order to follow as told. You may also wish to examine a well thought out argument by a moral ethicist linked from my blog of Dec. 9. That also contains a reference to Pell in the UK and his very different take on it which I included in fairness.

Nonsense.

Again and again, it has been pointed out to you that a moral decision contrary to the teaching of the Church is an immoral decision – and you choose to claim that somehow means “there is no such thing as a personal conscience.”

In fact, people can make both moral and immoral choices. but they must accept the consequences. Those made against Church teachings are immoral – no personal, subjective opinion can ever make morder or rape a “moral” choice.

Be careful…people do tend to cherry pick what serves their opinion.

And often to mis-state their opponents’ positions, too.

 

[fhansen]

It’s pretty simple. The Church knows and tells us what is right and true. She explains that we can’t always come to know these things on our own but that with the help of the Holy Spirit we can all freely come to agree with Her. Our part is to cooperate by really wanting to know-by seeking truth in prayer, study, and contemplation of the Word. As we do this, the Church proves Her trustworthiness to us. She serves as a guide so that where our consciences are at variance with Her, She compels us to take a look at why we differ. Our Lord is patient and kind. He knows what’s right for us but won’t force us because He’s not interested in automatons. That’s my simplified take on the matter anyway after much seeking as I alluded to and experiencing this on my own.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And those people who tout individual, uninstructed conscience over the teaching of the Church are simply wrong. We cannot achieve salvation on our own. We must inform our consciences by studying teaching of the Church – and if we cannot agree with that teaching in material matters, we must pray for the grace to understand.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am in a lay ministry group discussing the question on how the Magisterium has claimed that the tradition has been constant in upholding the moral illegitimacy of artificial contraception…

A study of the early Church writings show that this is the case.

See a sampling of quotes, here:
Contraception and Sterilization

The most comprehensive study to date on contraception and its treatment by Catholic theologians and canonist is documented in a book by John T. Noonan. After providing comprehensive evidence throughout his text showing the constant opposition to contraception by the Catholic Church, Noonan wrote:

"Never had it been admitted by a Catholic theologian that complete sexual intercourse might be had in which by deliberation, procreation was excluded.

" (John Noonan, Contraception - A History of Its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists, 438).
In 1930, Anglicans were the first to permit contraception, contrary to the teaching of the Protestant Reformers. See a scathing article from a Protestant author showing how this betrays even Protestant morality, here:

Hating Babies, Hating God
by Aaron D. Wolf

In response to the heretical claims of the Anglicans, **Pius XII **affirmed in 1930:

"Holy Writ bears witness [cf. Gen 38:8-10] that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.]

 56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: ***any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin***."

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

My question is what are the grounds for this argument against the moral permissibility of artificial contraception; and how would these arguments hold up with the recent writings of the recent popes;

Divine and Natural law are the authority for this teaching.

The recent popes have ALL upheld the teaching of Casti Connubii.

Paul VI, for example, confirmed this teaching in *Humanae Vitae. *When some complained about this teaching, Paul VI rightly affirmed:

***“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truth of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot do so." ***(Paul VI, General Audience, 12 Jan 1972)

John Paul II, confirmed this teaching in Familiaris Consortio Likewise, when faced with dissent, John Paul II affirmed:

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)

** Benedict XVI,** while still cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, censured Fr. Charles Curran and stripped him of his license to teach Catholic theology because Fr. Curran taught the opposite view. I will provide extended quotes of this correspondence in another post.

*** The teaching is infallible*** by virtue of the constant universal promulgation by the universal ordinary magisterium. Some Catholic theologicans even conclude that it is infallible by the virtue of ex cathedra pronouncement within Humanae Vitae.

Whether infallible by virtue of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, the Holy See has officially stated that it is infallible and irreformable.

“***The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. ***Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

and what would be the pro and con for the use of artificial contraception?

I can find no “pro” for artificial birth control, as the most effective means of regulating birth is natural family planning. See studies here.

Whereas the “pill” has many unhealthy side effects. For example, birth-control pills interfere with a woman’s immune system, making her more likely to contract certain diseases [1]. The birth control pill increases a woman’s chance of having breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer [2].

[1] Baeten, et al., American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 185:2 (August, 2001): 380-385; Ley, et al., *Journal of the National Cancer Institute *83:14 (July, 1991): 997-1003; Prakash, et al., *Journal of Reproductive Immunology *54 (March, 2002): 117-131; Wang, et al., *Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes *21:1 (May, 1999): 51-58; Lavreys, et al., AIDS 18:4 (March, 2004): 695-697.

[2] Chris Kahlenborn, MD, et al., Mayo Clinic Proceedings 81:10 (October, 2006): 1290-1302; Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, Lancet 347 (June, 1996): 1713-1727; World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Press Release 167 (July 29, 2005); Smith, et al., *Lancet *361 (2003):1159–1167; La Vecchia, *Minerva Ginecologica *58:3 (June, 2006): 209-214.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The church’s traditional teaching on conscience is that individuals must always follow their informed conscience, even if such a conscience-based decision be a variance with the teaching of the Magisterium.

In the 1960’s, Fr. Charles Curren rejected the teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968). His tactic was to claim a “conscience-based” decision. However, his argument was rejected by the Church.

Pius XII well before 1968 affirmed that what the pope expounded in Encyclical letters demands consent:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”[Luke 10:16]" Humani Generis, 20].

Some context, prior to Fr. Curran’s 1968 dissent of Humanae Vitae…

By virtue of the universal and constant teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the sin of contraception, and especially after Pius XI’s Casti Connubii which solemnly affirmed this Catholic teaching, Catholic theologians understood this teaching to be irrevocable.

For example, according to a Catholic moral theology textbook published as late at 1964:

the Church is irrevocably committed to its teaching that contraception is intrinsically and gravely immoral and there can be no substantial change in its teaching*. *[John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerald Kelly, S.J., *Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. II - Marriage Questions,

(Newman Press, 1964), p. 256]
This book goes into great detail discussing the basis of Divine and Natural law for this teaching, and I would be happy to provide further details if needed.

In 1968, Fr. Charles Curran publically refused his assent to the Encyclical *Humanae Vitae, *and continued to teach contrary to it. This dissent went on for quite sometime. Finally it was submitted to the Holy See to review. Here’s what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to Fr. Curran, Sept 17, 1985 (Prot. N. 48/66):

Dear Father Curran,

In your letter…you forwarded your response to this Congregation’s critical “Observations” on your work…we are now…in a position to bring this inquiry to a conclusion. The results of the Congregation’s inquiry were presented to the Sovereign Pontiff in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on June 28, 1985, and were confirmed by him…

Above all, we must recall the clear doctrine of the Vatican Council II regarding the principles of the assent of faith (Lumen Gentium, 25). This doctrine was incorporated in the revised Code of Canon Law in which c. 752 sums up…

Sapientis Christiana…says that Catholic theologians…do not teach on their own authority but by virtue of the mission they have received from the Church…the Church claims the freedom to maintain her own academic institutions in which her doctrine is reflected upon, taught and interpreted in complete fidelity…

In the correspondence exchanged between yourself and this Congregation, you have clearly affirmed that the positions you have maintained on various important elements of moral doctrine are in open contrast with the teaching of the Magisterium…

The first area of dissent is with regard to the principles of the Church’s teaching according to which every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life, and therefore artificial contraception and direct sterilization are forbidden and intrinsically wrong…

All the faithful are bound to follow the Magisterium according to which these acts are intrinsically immoral… Whatever the motive may be, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, outside normal and legitimate conjugal relations, essentially contradicts its finality, the purpose intended by the Creator…

… the Congregation now invites you to reconsider and to retract those positions…

Sincerely yours,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

As Pius XII declared in 1951, the repudiation against contraception is “as valid today as it was yesterday, and it will be the same tomorrow and always, because it does not imply a precept of the human law but is the expression of a law which is natural and divine.” [Pius XII, AAS, 43 (1951), 843].

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… What is the church’s teaching on the conscience in recent magisterial documents …

With regard to conscience, the Joseph Cardinal Ratzigner, while still Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, issued an Instruction of the Vocation of Theologian. It states:

…the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth. …

… In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of “parallel magisterium” of theologians… it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors…

The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent… the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (“sentire cum Ecclesia”) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church…

Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian…

…The acts of assent and submission to the Word entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Magisterium are directed ultimately to Him and lead us into the realm of true freedom.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

With regard to following an incorrect conscience, Cardinal Avery Dulles clarifies:

According to Catholic ethical tradition, conscience is the ultimate subjective

norm of all human action. By conscience I…[mean] a personal and considered judgment about what one ought, or ought not, to do or to have done.

[Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Authority and Conscience”, *Church, 1986, emphasis added]
Note here what “conscience” is: “about what one ought, ought not, to do or to have done.”

Compare this to what a “conscience” is not…

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his CDF instruction to theologians affirms:

a disagreement [with magisterial teaching] could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

Avery Cardinal Dulles continues…

By calling conscience the subjective

• norm* moral theologians intend to distinguish it from the objective norm, which is frequently describes as right reason, that is reason that apprehends the objective order of things, included the will of God as manifested through nature and revelation. ***A persons conscience can be out of phase with what is objectively right. ***In such a case, the individual will not be guilty for following the voice of conscience, but may be guilty for having failed to form that conscience by utilizing the necessary means.

[Avery Cardinal Dulles, ibid., emphasis added.]
Some may erroneously think they are guilt-free for sinning according to their faulty conscience, however they are gravely mistaken. The guilt derives not in following a faulty conscience, but the guilt is due to the voluntary ignorance or obstinacy which may precede a faulty conscience.

Furthermore, Cardinal Dulles explains:

Without denying the normative value of conscience for the individual, ***public authority must also defend the rights of persons who might be injured by others seeking to follow the dictates of an erroneous conscience.

---

[ibid., emphasis added]
This was why Fr. Charles Curran was officially censured by the Church. The Church judged that he violated canon law through the exercise of an erroneous conscience. The Church further judged that in order to protect other persons who might be injured by his dissent, he should be publically censured and stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

First let me say “itjustdave1988” is excellent . I would like to give you the common sense version.

**Natural Law **– the way the world works
Natural Moral Law – the Catholic belief God implanted the design for humans in each of us to include right, wrong, knowledge of god, etc. etc. NOTE: The church uses only the Natural Moral Law definition whether they use the term Natural Law or Natural Moral Law.

Conscience is based in Natural Moral Law with influences from your raising. If you were a well raised Catholic, Natural Moral Law, Church teachings (Magisterium), and your conscience are aligned. So for hundreds of issues in which you do not know a specific church teaching use your conscience.

[Question]My question is what are the grounds for this argument against the moral permissibility of artificial contraception; and how would these arguments hold up with the recent writings of the recent popes; and what would be the pro and con for the use of artificial contraception?

The Church teachings are celibacy to all except the married, the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, in your Natural Moral Law design men and women unit for life, bond and produce children so “unity” is the binding of the man and wife and recognized by the church. So where does artificial contraception fit in? It does not, the church holds artificial contraception is used to subvert conditions which call for celibacy. The church has always held such a position. End of your questions.

I’ll inject the issue is an argument has been presented that couples can use their conscience to determine if artificial contraception should be used? The church refers to this as disordered which means improper order has been used to determine a false conclusion. The artificial contraception is used to subvert both conditions of celibacy and marriage by substituting a conscience decision in place of actual Church teachings. The Church teachings are better aligned with the Natural moral Law than the conscience of the young couple

Hope that helps

 

[Janet_S]

Read the thread Mousey told you about. There is no doctrine of “primacy of conscience.” Catholics are still expected to form our consciences by the teachings of the Church.

This creative notion of “primacy of conscience” is used exclusively to justify sexual sins (homosexuality, abortion, ABC usually). The Church still believes sin is sin no matter how deluded one is about their faulty idea of conscience.

In the Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes, there is mention of ABC as well. Note that this document pre-dates Humanae Vitae:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

1. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Janet_S]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

1. International cooperation is needed today especially for those peoples who, besides facing so many other difficulties, likewise undergo pressures due to a rapid increase in population. There is an urgent need to explore, with the full and intense cooperation of all, and especially of the wealthier nations, ways whereby the human necessities of food and a suitable education can be furnished and shared with the entire human community. But some peoples could greatly improve upon the conditions of their life if they would change over from antiquated methods of farming to the new technical methods, applying them with needed prudence according to their own circumstances. Their life would likewise be improved by the establishment of a better social order and by a fairer system for the distribution of land ownership.

Governments undoubtedly have rights and duties, within the limits of their proper competency, regarding the population problem in their respective countries, for instance, in the line of social and family life legislation, or regarding the migration of country-dwellers to the cities, or with respect to information concerning the condition and needs of the country. Since men today are giving thought to this problem and are so greatly disturbed over it, it is desirable in addition that Catholic specialists, especially in the universities, skillfully pursue and develop studies and projects on all these matters.

But there are many today who maintain that the increase in world population, or at least the population increase in some countries, must be radically curbed by every means possible and by any kind of intervention on the part of public authority. In view of this contention, the council urges everyone to guard against solutions, whether publicly or privately supported, or at times even imposed, which are contrary to the moral law. For in keeping with man’s inalienable right to marry and generate children, a decision concerning the number of children they will have depends on the right judgment of the parents and it cannot in any way be left to the judgment of public authority. But since the judgment of the parents presupposes a rightly formed conscience, it is of the utmost importance that the way be open for everyone to develop a correct and genuinely human responsibility which respects the divine law and takes into consideration the circumstances of the situation and the time. But sometimes this requires an improvement in educational and social conditions, and, above all, formation in religion or at least a complete moral training. Men should discreetly be informed, furthermore, of scientific advances in exploring methods whereby spouses can be helped in regulating the number of their children and whose safeness has been well proven and whose harmony with the moral order has been ascertained…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Many hear do not believe there is any concept of primacy of conscience. They of course see a great threat in it. Most, based on their replies and comments suggest to me they have an incorrect assumption of what it means, often likening it to “doing your own thing” or substituting their opinion to that that of the Church. Although this has been explained as untrue time and time again, some continue to make this claim.

I submit the following links. For those who think that I am simply attempting to make this up and and unfair, I submit that no one was citing Pell’s statements until I supplied the link in all fairness. In any event the following states my opinion in the matter. I do not claim that I am right, I don’t claim the expertise as some here obviously do in making blanket statements that this person is right or wrong. I state my opinion, and give the evidence for that opinion. I trust that those who truly are interesting in determining the truth, with examine all relevant documents and evidence and make up their own mind, as they should.

“A Catholic Social Conscience” – catholic-conscience.blogspot.com/2005/04/catholic-social-conscience.html

“Understanding Conscience: Making the Right Choice” – the-tidings.com/2007/011207/benson.htm

“Bishop Misses the Mark in assault on understanding of conscience.” – eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=2420

“The Wild Reed” – the author is a gay man and obviously has a stake in the results, but his analysis focuses of documents and even statements by Benedict indicating a clear understanding of what indiviidual conscience. thewildreed.blogspot.com/2006/11/question-of-informed-catholic.html

“The Primacy of Conscience” by Brian Lewis, theologian. There is an good bibliography and footnotes, Note as well this is a peer reviewed journal – dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_6/lewis.htm

Wikipedia entry on conscience citing Catholic doctrine – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

“Conscience of Truth” by then Cardinal Ratzinger – note the 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph, and the last couple paragraphs before the epilogue at the end. This is not directly on point, but is a wonderful deep and thoughtful look at conscience, wherein teh Pope uses primacy of conscience a number of times. – ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

I have already cited early the pertinent sections on formation of conscience etc in the CCC

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t see anything there that says, “The Catholic Church sometimes teaches error, so it is permissible to abandon Church teaching in favor of your own opinions.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed the traditional view on conscience: “one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.” source, as linked to above]. However, he is not saying that those who follow a certain but erroneous conscience in grave matters are justified in doing so. This distinction must be made very clear. In the same article, he affirms that Sacred Scripture precludes "a theory of justification by the errant conscience."

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms, “vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know” (Summa Theologica, IIa, 76,2). Consequently, it must be made clear that following a faulty conscience in grave matters which was made erroneous by vincible ignorance or obstinacy may be as damnable as any other grave sin.

As Cardinal Avery Dulles noted, "A persons conscience can be out of phase with what is objectively right. In such a case, the individual will not be guilty for following the voice of conscience, but may be guilty for having failed to form that conscience by utilizing the necessary means. "

For this very reason, Pope St. Pius X affirms:

“the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine…[resulting in] a great loss of souls…see to it and urge on others that the knowledge of Christian doctrine pervades and imbues fully and deeply the minds of all.” (St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (1905)]