We all have a conscience or a law written on our heart. That is put there by God.When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of Knowledge man had a conscience.
When God ask why they were hiding their response was because I am naked.
What gave them the reasoning to know they were naked?
a conscience.
When Cain Killed Abel he hid from God and God asked where is your brother and his response was a lie and stated “am I my brothers keeper”?
Cain knew he was wrong because of a conscience.
This was not taught to them but it is what seperates us from the animal kingdom.
When we reach the age of reason–the ability to say no and it’s effects we have a conscience.
By the way can I hold a conscience in my hand? Is it tangible? Can I buy one?
No, it is part of the soul.
Janet: I would really like to see 1 example of a Catholic before the 1960’s who ever claimed “primacy of conscience” as a reason to dissent from Church teaching, especially regarding sexual sins. Maybe you can look that up, but I doubt you will find anyone who ever did before then. As a heresy, I am quite sure you can’t trace this one back any further than 1966.
I’m not sure I should have to prove this, since it adds nothing. And in any case, for what reason do you think that someone’s personal conclusion about any Church teaching would somehow be public and available for strangers to puzzle over?
Janet: Conscience is supposed to be the voice of God. It’s strange how many people God is telling to have abortions, have homosexual sex, and to use birth control. It’s especially strange since He is telling His Church the opposite.
The “primacy of conscience” heresy is used for one thing: to justify sins of impurity. Usually abortion, homosexuality, or ABC. That’s what it’s all about.While I’m not inclined to conclude what God may be telling anyone, I would be rather shocked to find God telling people most of the things you address, perhaps in some cases all of them. I agree, the Church’s teachings are quite clear.
A person should be taught the Churches doctrines, admonished to pray about them, wrestle with them, ponder them, and, if they can’t agree, then they should be made aware that they are not following the Church, i.e.not Catholic. But pre Vat II the attitude was that we were not to question- doubt was evil and virtually unmentionable even if it was our honest disposition- and I think that this was not very conducive to a mature or deep faith-to learning and growing in it. Today the Church is emphasizing more of our own participation in and responsibility for our faith.Should we tell our RCIA candidates: “This is what the Church teaches. Pray about it. If you can’t accept it, that’s fine. Each of us must follow his conscience.”
Please, what kind of instruction is that. For one thing, how many people even know what the Church means when by “conscience.” For another thing, if a person is just beginning to learn about Catholicism, the chance is about nil that they have anything close to a well-formed conscience. Who would bother wrestling with the Church’s teachings, especially the tough ones, if they can so easily dismiss them.
For one thing, I’m not so sure Pre-V2 was the horribly dark period everyone seems to think it was. I don’t know for sure, I was alive then, but not old enough to remember. There were a lot of intellectual converts to the Church during this time, though, including Newman. A lot of good books were written then, so I imagine there were Catholics who were reading them. Also we had Fulton Sheen on television starting in the 1950’s. He had the #1 show on air. I don’t think people’s desire to understand the faith is something new.A person should be taught the Churches doctrines, admonished to pray about them, wrestle with them, ponder them, and, if they can’t agree, then they should be made aware that they are not following the Church, i.e.not Catholic. But pre Vat II the attitude was that we were not to question- doubt was evil and virtually unmentionable even if it was our honest disposition- and I think that this was not very conducive to a mature or deep faith-to learning and growing in it. Today the Church is emphasizing more of our own participation in and responsibility for our faith.
The point is when one claims they do not “understand” why the Church teaches contraception, homosexual acts, or anything else, are wrong that is no reason to claim one’s conscience is free to reject such teachings. They are free to pray and study and submit.It means using both our Faith and reason to understand a moral position taken by the Church. One cannot use reason alone; it must be enlightened by the revelation of FAITH.
Great, then at last you agree the teachings on faith and morals are objectively correct and for any conscience to reject them would be objectively wrong. Culpability will vary.Of course not, and not one person here is suggesting anything so patently frivolous and useless.
I’m not saying that pre-Vat II was a dark place-I think it was right for the times. I’m just saying that I’m convinced that we’ll grow in appreciation for Vat II as we come to better understand and apply it correctly. And that through it the Holy Spirit has increased our opportunity for light over perhaps any time in the past.For one thing, I’m not so sure Pre-V2 was the horribly dark period everyone seems to think it was.
And to this I agree completely.And the sad part is, many of those rejecting Church teachings are DRE’s, priests, or theologians teaching in Catholic universities. No wonder there are so many non-Catholic Catholics.
Janet, can’t we just say that we disagree. You I believe on another thread on this same subject, rejected one entire citation of mine claiming the title given didn’t refer to conscience so you reject it totally. I’ve given you reasons why I don’t think LG applicable here. Most importantly because it is no where cited in the CCC sections on moral conscience as being in any way applicable to those teachings.It says: “Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” It can’t get much clearer than that.
Look at it this way, the Pope is our shepherd. We are the sheep. Sheep are free to stray, but, when they do, they usually fall off a cliff or get eaten by a wolf.
See this is where I get frustrated. You continue to misrepresent what I and others have said. No one is claiming what you say is what primacy of conscience means. This is what convinces me that you clearly do understand and deliberately distort it in an attempt to convince others that you are correct. I know what you fear, but I reject this kind of parental control over us poor dumb folks who can’t be trusted to handle the true process.I think it would be a disaster for anyone involved in lay ministry to present the teachings of the Church as optional. I know this is done all the time, and maybe this is how some of the people here were instructed.
Should we tell our RCIA candidates: “This is what the Church teaches. Pray about it. If you can’t accept it, that’s fine. Each of us must follow his conscience.”
Because as we have told you now at least a dozen times, they cannot be dismissed easily at all.Please, what kind of instruction is that. For one thing, how many people even know what the Church means when by “conscience.” For another thing, if a person is just beginning to learn about Catholicism, the chance is about nil that they have anything close to a well-formed conscience. Who would bother wrestling with the Church’s teachings, especially the tough ones,if they can so easily dismiss them.
Thanks, but I don’t think it’s my side that has been distorting and twisting the truth. By your standard this is simply no need for a CCC section on conscience whatsoever. All they needed to say was “follow the Church”…instead oddly, they say, tell you exactly how to go about forming your conscience, the dangers and pitfalls of going away from teaching, and stating the bottom line that in the end, you must follow your own conscience as any human being would naturally expect. You present a doctrine that would both shock the world and paralyze the Church if it became believed as true.“primacy of conscience” is the heresy du jour in the Catholic Church. People have taken a truth and twisted it into something unrecognizable.
The “primacy of conscience” heresy is used for one thing: to justify sins of impurity. Usually abortion, homosexuality, or ABC. That’s what it’s all about.
Indeed, this is what it is all about. The fact that some people mis use the doctrine so you want to pretend it doesnt’ exist. It would be better to address the problem of mis use of primacy of conscience I would think than to try to convince people it does not exist. You’re not the only person who can read. Misleading people only works when they have not the ability to look it up themselves. That’s all I ask people to do. Simply read the available evidence. Now you’ve raised it to heresy. Nice.
Fix again, I don’t know whether it is genuine inability to see what i and others are saying, due to our poor ability to state it no doubt, or intentional and willful distortion because you and others think we can’t be trusted with the truth, but you of course know that I have not agreed to your position. I tend to rely on the CCC and the popes who have spoken in my opinion quite clearly. I am of course merely following church teaching as I’m told I must do anyway.Great, then at last you agree the teachings on faith and morals are objectively correct and for any conscience to reject them would be objectively wrong. Culpability will vary.
As I said to another poster Church teaching says one must follow their conscience and one must not reject Church teaching. The two have to be reconciled. To only accent the first while rejecting the second would make the the truth a lie.Fix again, I don’t know whether it is genuine inability to see what i and others are saying, due to our poor ability to state it no doubt, or intentional and willful distortion because you and others think we can’t be trusted with the truth, but you of course know that I have not agreed to your position. I tend to rely on the CCC and the popes who have spoken in my opinion quite clearly. I am of course merely following church teaching as I’m told I must do anyway.
I’m glad to hear this. You’ve come a long way from when we began discussing the issue of conscience almost a month ago.I tend to rely on the CCC and the popes who have spoken in my opinion quite clearly. I am of course merely following church teaching as I’m told I must do anyway.
The “primacy of conscience” heresy is used for one thing: to justify sins of impurity. Usually abortion, homosexuality, or ABC. That’s what it’s all about.
Do you forget that you are one of the people who misused the idea of conscience for this very reason? Remember a month ago, in the “cafeteria Catholic” thread, you were criticizing the Church because of her teaching specifically against ABC and homosexuality. You said the Church had no business condemning homosexuality. You appealed to conscience as a basis of dissent from Church teaching. I’m surprised you don’t remember, but that’s how this whole discussion started. Also, several of us looked at your blog. You are at odds with the Church on many, many issues–liberation theology, legalized abortion, ABC, homosexuality, etc.Indeed, this is what it is all about. The fact that some people mis use the doctrine so you want to pretend it doesnt’ exist. It would be better to address the problem of mis use of primacy of conscience I would think than to try to convince people it does not exist. You’re not the only person who can read. Misleading people only works when they have not the ability to look it up themselves. That’s all I ask people to do. Simply read the available evidence. Now you’ve raised it to heresy. Nice.
CCC 2089: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same
Interesting you never address what i have asked you to answer. But I did not say that the Church had no business condeming homosexuality. I said that based on what i have learned I’m not sure the Church should be in the business of condeming homosexuality. I’m done…I an just tired of having to correct every post. The Church doesnt condemn LT btw. I rather think my blog is not for you.=Janet S;3154817Do you forget that you are one of the people who misused the idea of conscience for this very reason? Remember a month ago, in the “cafeteria Catholic” thread, you were criticizing the Church because of her teaching specifically against ABC and homosexuality. You said the Church had no business condemning homosexuality. You appealed to conscience as a basis of dissent from Church teaching. I’m surprised you don’t remember, but that’s how this whole discussion started. Also, several of us looked at your blog. You are at odds with the Church on many, many issues–liberation theology, legalized abortion, ABC, homosexuality, etc.
That is simply a blatant untruth. I have NEVER said this.Maybe you’re having a change of heart now, and if so, that’s good to hear. But at least a month ago, your disagreements with the Church were many. And you were the one who said you had every right to believe whatever you wanted to because of your “conscience.”