Yes, simplicity is a virtue, and we could simply quote the plain and clear language of CCC 1800 and let it go at that. In fact I did quote this perennial teaching of the Church with my first comment on this thread, and in my opinion much overthinking is evident in the attempts to refute it.This is so wildly wrong.
The purpose of conscience to draw the person to unity with the Body of Christ, the Church. Conscience allows the voice of God to speak clearly in the person, always drawing toward unity with the Church.
Please read the catechism and stop overthinking this. Simplicity is a virtue.
And what if revelation continues until the end of time? It is Church doctrine.What if I had angel’s wings?
The more one understands about the church the less likely it is one could be certain the church is wrong. If one knows what church doctrine is and rejects it, if it turns out the doctrine is true on what grounds could we claim exemption from our error?You believe that if one intentionally does not follow an understood Church Teaching when acting then one’s contrary act cannot be justified on “certain but erroneous conscience” grounds - because such error is culpable as one has refused to correctly form one’s conscience.
If a father warns his son not to play with matches, but the boy does it anyway and is burned, has the father punished him or has he simply endured the consequence of his choice? Have we not also been warned, and will we not also endure the consequence of our choice?For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.This essentially means the Church’s Teachings, when speculatively heard and understood in themselves, coerce under pain of actual sin and often damnation. This is essentially the definition of a command.
There was nothing to admit as this was never the issue. The question is precisely about denying a moral principle as taught by the church in favor of one’s own moral judgment.At last, you admit a situation calls for the application of the correct moral principles when it can be analyzed different ways. This is the function of practical reason and conscience judgements are involved here. It has nothing to do with denying a moral principle (most of the time) or teaching but practically deciding the correct one that applies.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.I am not sure what you think the Church claims to be?
The church. The Magisterium. This is a foundational belief.And who actually makes this claim?
We cannot know it is objectively true; we believe it but we cannot prove it. The point, however, is this: if what the church believes about herself is true (CCC 85) then rejecting church doctrine is a rejection of the truth. If she is wrong about herself then there is no reason to believe objective truth exists as there is no way to know what it is.And how would you personally know this claim is not just “certain” but also objectively true?
If the most that can be said about any church doctrine is that it might be true, what good is it? If I am the final arbiter of what is true, of what use is the church? When I reject a particular doctrine as being in error I also reject the basis on which the church is built; I reject her claims to the truth, and once I have done that, what’s left but happy talk and bad music?Is a clock that is 2 minutes slow either “broken” or useless?
I don’t think so, and yes I have no problem with the Catholic Church being like this…just as most sane religions also believe about themselves including Judaism.
In the interest of simplicity, the following is simply not correct. Maybe the good thing to do is go back and examine the CCC.Yes, simplicity is a virtue, and we could simply quote the plain and clear language of CCC 1800 and let it go at that. In fact I did quote this perennial teaching of the Church with my first comment on this thread, and in my opinion much overthinking is evident in the attempts to refute it.
Originally Posted by Thomas White View Post
Yes, but to say a human being’s certain judgment of conscience must always conform to Church teaching is circular logic that negates the very purpose of the conscience.
It’s a basic Catholic doctrine that Christ is the complete and full revelation of God. Revelation is not continuing.And what if revelation continues until the end of time? It is Church doctrine.
Indeed.The more one understands about the church the less likely it is one could be certain the church is wrong. If one knows what church doctrine is and rejects it, if it turns out the doctrine is true on what grounds could we claim exemption from our error?
And as always, the marital analogy is probably the best one for the deeper realities.Indeed.
All one has to do is superimpose “Christ” for “the Church” and we see how absurd it is to have one’s conscience be divorced from what the Church teaches.
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
Church: “Contraception is always wrong.”Being unable to accept that all contraception is wrong is not necessarily a rejection of the Church’s authority to teach.
Let’s distinguish the why from the what. If someone uses contraception (and knows the church teaching on the matter) there is no other way to describe the decision than as a rejection of church doctrine. As to why one does it, that doesn’t matter; that doesn’t change what was done.How do you come to the clear conclusion that someone’s private and quiet use of contraceptives involves a clear rejection of the Church’s teaching on the immorality of contraceptive acts?
That’s true, and nobody has argued otherwise: if we are invincibly ignorant we are not held accountable for our sins. This evades the actual issue: can we reasonably claim invincible ignorance when the act involves the rejection of church doctrine?And yet the CCC says just this.
Therefore some cases of certain judgement (the invincibly ignorant ones) are not held against us by God.
If you’re getting weary it is in trying to defend a position that grows weaker as the issue grows sharper. Ambiguity is your friend, clarity is not.I just love the way you turn obvious glasses half full statements into “proof” of empty glasses … “usually” or “in practice”. You do this all the time and the empty rhetoric is wearisome.
If certain (and I include in this case “aware of no conflict with church doctrine”) - I cannot fathom how one could be culpable.
We are not attempting to refute it; that’s not been what the debate is about. The discussion is about what is inferred from 1800: that one will not be held culpable for acts committed in accordance with a certain conscience. While there are instances of invincible ignorance that excuse errors in judgment, the belief that one is justified in rejecting church doctrine in favor of a personal sense of right and wrong seems indefensible. No one has presented an argument that suggests this may be true.Yes, simplicity is a virtue, and we could simply quote the plain and clear language of CCC 1800 and let it go at that. In fact I did quote this perennial teaching of the Church with my first comment on this thread, and in my opinion much overthinking is evident in the attempts to refute it.
The threads on conscience go round and round in a mysterious eternal return. What good has it done to provide a reference when it is simply ignored?In the interest of simplicity, the following is simply not correct. Maybe the good thing to do is go back and examine the CCC.
Yes, Christ is the source of divine revelation. It is the understanding of revelation that continues to advance until the end of time, and it is the advancement of understanding that is revealed to each generation. All of this has been provided a number of times in this and other threads, and to simply ignore Church doctrine is what results in the endless loop of debate. Your assumption is that all that can be known of revelation is already known, and ultimately assumed is that we already know all there is to know–i.e., what only Christ knows. This is just plain false and contradicts Church doctrine.It’s a basic Catholic doctrine that Christ is the complete and full revelation of God. Revelation is not continuing.
It’s meaning is to be ever more fully grasped by the Church, but revelation is fully embodied in Jesus Christ.
CCC 65* In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.It’s a basic Catholic doctrine that Christ is the complete and full revelation of God. Revelation is not continuing.
It’s meaning is to be ever more fully grasped by the Church, but revelation is fully embodied in Jesus Christ.
Do you take this to mean that one will not be held culpable for any act committed in accordance with a certain conscience which includes the substitution of a known doctrine of the church with one’s personal sense of what is right or wrong in a particular situation? That is, may I safely substitute my morality for the church’s teaching if I am “certain” I am right? Is it my certainty that protects me from culpability?“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. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church.” (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II
No, the conscience can err, and a person is responsible for it. How many times must it be said? Is this not an example of the way the discussion goes round and round?Do you take this to mean that one will not be held culpable for any act committed in accordance with a certain conscience which includes the substitution of a known doctrine of the church with one’s personal sense of what is right or wrong in a particular situation?
No, a person’s certainty does not protect him from culpability. There is no assurance. But it is reasonable to conclude that the teaching that a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience means the judgment is not in error unless the hearing of the voice inscribed in the heart is “skewed” and the conviction is thus “awry”.That is, may I safely substitute my morality for the church’s teaching if I am “certain” I am right? Is it my certainty that protects me from culpability?
Ender
Well, now you’ve changed what you claim to say.The threads on conscience go round and round in a mysterious eternal return. What good has it done to provide a reference when it is simply ignored?
“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. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church.” (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II
It won’t do to simply question why this quote is provided again and again.
Yes, Christ is the source of divine revelation. It is the understanding of revelation that continues to advance until the end of time, and it is the advancement of understanding that is revealed to each generation. All of this has been provided a number of times in this and other threads, and to simply ignore Church doctrine is what results in the endless loop of debate. Your assumption is that all that can be known of revelation is already known, and ultimately assumed is that we already know all there is to know–i.e., what only Christ knows. This is just plain false and contradicts Church doctrine.
As was noted in comment #293, some understanding of the theology of Ratzinger is necessary.
I think the reason the debate continues is that after a straightforward yes or no answer comes a “but.”No, the conscience can err, and a person is responsible for it. How many times must it be said? Is this not an example of the way the discussion goes round and round?
I’m clearly not getting what you mean here since it seems like you’re saying a person’s conscience is in error if it’s skewed…which is what it means to have a conscience that is in error. The problem for the individual of course is that he cannot tell if his own conscience is skewed. How would he know? How would you know whether his conscience was skewed?No, a person’s certainty does not protect him from culpability. There is no assurance. **But **it is reasonable to conclude that the teaching that a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience means the judgment is not in error unless the hearing of the voice inscribed in the heart is “skewed” and the conviction is thus “awry”.
No it’s not circular to say that conscience is unlikely to be certain if acknowledged to be in conflict with doctrine. I accept the rare exceptions you identify.Yes, but to say a human being’s certain judgment of conscience must always conform to Church teaching is circular logic that negates the very purpose of the conscience. What if an “extraordinarily rare” circumstance that represents an advancement of teaching is revealed to a pope who then shares this revelation in a papal exhortation? It is this type of extraordinary circumstance I had in mind.
I do not know why this is said. Could you please be specific?Well, now you’ve changed what you claim to say.
In both instances you said something that was not in step, and then you simply claim the right stance when it is pointed out to you.
So ok, you can be right, and the discussion is pointless if you are going to levitate above the shifting sands.
What do I mean here? How many times must this quote be provided in a single thread?I think the reason the debate continues is that after a straightforward yes or no answer comes a “but.”
I’m clearly not getting what you mean here since it seems like you’re saying a person’s conscience is in error if it’s skewed…which is what it means to have a conscience that is in error. The problem for the individual of course is that he cannot tell if his own conscience is skewed. How would he know? How would you know whether his conscience was skewed?
Of course it can be a combination of the two. Moral truths are moral truth whatever their source, and this too is Church doctrine (said with respect to other religions).If I claim abortion is justifiable you can know that my conscience differs from yours (and, obviously, from the church), but how would you know whose conscience was in error? If the church cannot be depended on to know the truth who becomes the authority in its place? It would seem the authority to determine moral truths lies either with the individual or with the church, but it cannot be a combination of the two.
Ender
When his conscience tells him it’s ok to do something which is in contrast with what Christ has declared.How would a person know his conscience was askew?
True, he would not. Now, how would you or I know whether or not his conscience was askew? That is, how do we judge what is skewed except by comparing it to an objective standard? And if there is no standard then there is no possibility of judging.How would a person know his conscience was askew? I would think by definition a person would not know his conscience was askew.
The question has never been just about the certain conscience, but the certain conscience that conflicts with church doctrine. When the two conflict is it the certain conscience or doctrine that should be assumed correct?What the above means is that “askew convictions” in the certain judgment of the conscience result “by having stifled the anamnesis of being”. However, absent some error, why isn’t it logical to conclude the certain judgment of conscience is correct? Is it that this cannot happen?
Again, this needs to be expressed more precisely. An individual may well have extracted a nuance from doctrine the church has not expressed, but that’s not the issue. The question concerns the situation where what the individual believes is contrary to what the church teaches. Do you still hold that truth is a combination of doctrine and personal belief in that situation?Of course it can be a combination of the two [church doctrine, individual belief]. Moral truths are moral truth whatever their source, and this too is Church doctrine (said with respect to other religions).
I said above that error can only be known if there is an objective standard against which our beliefs can be compared. If you reject the existence of such a standard, or insist that it cannot be known, then the concept of morality is meaningless. If we cannot know what is good and what is bad the terms mean no more than “I like this” and “I dislike that.”I would believe that my own conscience was not in error with respect to abortion, but I cannot know whether the conscience of another person is in error even if it differs from mine. Of course the Church is an authority, but it also teaches that Absolute Truth will not be revealed and thus cannot be known before the end of time.
Yes, that is my position. Believing otherwise eliminates even the possibility of determining the truth. Correctness becomes undeterminable, and therefore meaningless. If I say I am right and the church is wrong, and you admit this possibility, how is it determined which of us is right? Who is left to appeal to?It still seems you are seeking to establish that to be correct the certain judgment of conscience must conform to Church teaching.
We are familiar with the citation, and accept what it says. The objections are to the assumption you have made with regard to what it implies. One must follow one’s certain conscience because to do otherwise is to sin, and it is a sin because doing something we believe is wrong makes that action, whatever it is, sinful. Of course we must do what we think is right; it is sinful to do what we think is wrong, but this hardly means that what we think is right becomes right simply because we are obliged not to do what we think is wrong.I have explained why and have time and again provided references that are, in fact, from Church doctrine, the CCC, and quotations from the future Pope Benedict XVI to support this position. It does not seem to matter.