The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Thomas_White]

• 891 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ*, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”
  What more is there to say? A person either accepts this or he does not etc. So, if our conscience trumps the words of the pope and ecclesiastical authority, does it also trump the words of Christ? Does “obeyed before all else” include Christ as well?

If you present Ratzinger’s statement as inarguably true without condition or exception then how do you take the statement in the catechism? Does it not also say what we *must *do, and does it not present a situation where one obligation must in fact yield to the other?

I said before that you cannot seize on one passage to the exclusion of all else, that everything said must be reconciled, as these (apparently) conflicting obligations demonstrate.

Ender

What does “the obedience of faith” mean? It most likely means to obey the command to believe the Gospel (Rom, 1:5; 16:26) and not a command to obey all that God has commanded. Only Christ has done that.

The focus is not properly on what Ratzinger said. He was explaining the teaching on conscience, e.g. CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” What he does is to make this teaching absolutely clear: “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” He is making clear that what this means is just what it says: “conscience must be obeyed before all else”. But this does not expand the teaching of the CCC on conscience.

 

[goout]

Thomas,

I thought of a connectionbetween CCC 1800 andAL

Suppose there were a couple in a divorced and remarried situation. They discussed with their pastor, and their*pastor decided that the couple should begin to receive Holy Communion.

A third person in the parishcomes to know of this, and seeking, out ofa judgement of conscience, seeks to prevent what heconsiders to be sacrilege by blocking that couple each time theyattempt to*receive Holy Communion.

We both agree that this third person SHOULD follow their conscience and attempt to block the couple, despite the conscience being opposed to the ecclesial teachings of the Church.

What action(s) should the pastor take?

“Respect” each individual conscience and allow them to follow it while mercifully counseling them?
(thus allowing chaos to reign? )

Chaos, confusion, and disunity reign where the practice of a faithful life attempts to separate from truth.
The Church’s teaching draws the faithful conscience toward unity with Christ and his Church, not toward itself. (an idea which is pretty much lost in this thread)

 

[Brendan]

I don’t believe this would go over well with the pastor, and I doubt there would be a second occurrence. But what I believe is that the promptings of conscience concern the actions, or behavior, of the person relative to what would be right or wrong for him–that is, whether or not he should receive communion in a particular circumstance.

I understand that a person might come to the conclusion that they might receive Holy Communion in a particularcircumstance, but thatjudgement bind in the Church*to offer it?

It seems to me the actions of the third person, where he blocks the couple from receiving communion, is an instance of hearing a skewed voice in his conscience and for which he is responsible if he acts on it. The behavior is so egregious that it probably indicates a psychiatric disorder. And this sort of delusional behavior really happens.

I agree, especially in the sense that a skewed voice of conscience requires correction.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What it ought to suggest is that I mean neither more nor less than what I say - in this case the simple meaning of the word: this value is higher than that value. As I pointed out there are (at least) two instances where we are told what we “must” do; one in the comment by Cardinal Ratzinger, and the other in section 891 of the catechism, and the question I asked was which is of higher value? Why should we believe it true that Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that we “must” follow our conscience takes precedence over the church’s assertion that we “must” assent to her infallible teachings?

Again it comes back to the source of your “must”. Of authority.
There is no external must, be it that of the CCC or that of the Ratzinger statement.

The CCC “must” is certainly external and ultimately meaningless in the face of a certain conscience. If I cannot assent on a particular point that over time I have slowly and quietly grown to deeply disagree with … what then? Am I allowed to say to myself, somethings got lost in the static here, the Church must have a blindspot, or maybe I do, but I am quietly not going to live this teaching in my own personal life either way. And if I confessed this particular bug bear to the Pope when visiting Rome and he says, Blue, this is a make or break issue for Catholics. What then “must” I do? Well my conscience would have to prudentially decide whether that was just the Pope’s idiosyncratic view and I will appeal to Christ at death and then proceed to live my Catholic life as normal. Or my conscience might prudentially decide that if this really is the view of the Church then I “must” leave as the blocks no longer fit in the box…the Church is somehow not where Christ wants me to be. Or, somehow the Christ I thought I knew actually doesn’t exist…though God still exists. Perhaps I should seek God in Judaism.

The point above is that the “must” of the Church is external Ender.
It only has as much authority as I give it internally.
The “must” of conscience is greater and when accessed honestly much easier to follow as indicated by a peaceful heart and tranquillity of mind…for it echoes the friendly voice of God.
My yoke is easy…

So Cardinal Ratzingers “must” is not the same as that of the CCC Ender.
That is why it is erroneous to compare the two authorities and pit them against each other.
Ratzinger is simply appealing to and indicating that internal “must” we all have within that gives ultimate legitimacy to any particular person or teaching or institution we might come across in the CCC or some Magisterial statement.

Are we being asked to choose between Cardinal Ratzinger and the church?

So no.

This one takes us off the reservation.

Exactly so, the conundrum can only be resolved by doing so.
Internal versus external authority.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thomas,

I thought of a connectionbetween CCC 1800 andAL

Suppose there were a couple in a divorced and remarried situation. They discussed with their pastor, and their*pastor decided that the couple should begin to receive Holy Communion.

A third person in the parishcomes to know of this, and seeking, out ofa judgement of conscience, seeks to prevent what heconsiders to be sacrilege by blocking that couple each time theyattempt to*receive Holy Communion.

We both agree that this third person SHOULD follow their conscience and attempt to block the couple, despite the conscience being opposed to the ecclesial teachings of the Church.

What action(s) should the pastor take?

The PP would no doubt follow his conscience and gently point out Canon 915 which gives that role only to the minister of Communion.
Should the parishioner with the certain but erroneous conscience continue in their error to the point of action the PP would, following his conscience and with pastoral solicitude, call the police to intervene…and possibly a health professional.

And all involved would be full of grace and loved by God despite the messy situation.

Is not all this obvious common sense?

 

[Thomas_White]

What it ought to suggest is that I mean neither more nor less than what I say - in this case the simple meaning of the word: this value is higher than that value. As I pointed out there are (at least) two instances where we are told what we “must” do; one in the comment by Cardinal Ratzinger, and the other in section 891 of the catechism, and the question I asked was which is of higher value? Why should we believe it true that Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that we “must” follow our conscience takes precedence over the church’s assertion that we “must” assent to her infallible teachings?
Are we being asked to choose between Cardinal Ratzinger and the church?

Ender

No, Ender, we are not.

The focus is not even properly on what Cardinal Ratzinger said. He was explaining the teaching on conscience, e.g. CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” What he does is to make this teaching absolutely clear: “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” He is making clear what this means, and it is simply what CCC 1800 already clearly says, that he conscience “must be obeyed before all else”. And what Cardinal Ratzinger said does not expand in any way the teaching of either CCC 1776 or 1800.

 

[Thomas_White]

What it ought to suggest is that I mean neither more nor less than what I say - in this case the simple meaning of the word: this value is higher than that value. As I pointed out there are (at least) two instances where we are told what we “must” do; one in the comment by Cardinal Ratzinger, and the other in section 891 of the catechism, and the question I asked was which is of higher value? Why should we believe it true that Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that we “must” follow our conscience takes precedence over the church’s assertion that we “must” assent to her infallible teachings?
Are we being asked to choose between Cardinal Ratzinger and the church?

Ender

No, Ender, we are not.

The focus is not even properly on what Cardinal Ratzinger said. He was explaining the teaching on conscience, i.e., CCC 1776: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon his self but which he must obey.” What he does is to make this teaching absolutely clear: “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” He is making clear what this means, and it is no more than what CCC 1776 already says, that man “discovers a law” deep within his conscience “which he must obey.” Perhaps this was a response to a question, but what Cardinal Ratzinger said does not expand in any way the teaching of CCC 1776.

 

[Ender]

What does “the obedience of faith” mean? It most likely means to obey the command to believe the Gospel (Rom, 1:5; 16:26) and not a command to obey all that God has commanded.

No, it is a very specific command: it refers to all infallible doctrines. These are what “must be adhered to.”

The focus is not properly on what Ratzinger said. He was explaining the teaching on conscience, e.g. CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” What he does is to make this teaching absolutely clear: “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” He is making clear that what this means is just what it says: “conscience must be obeyed before all else”. But this does not expand the teaching of the CCC on conscience.

I don’t contest what Ratzinger said. I’m pointing out that your understanding of 1800 sets up a conflict with 891. 1800 says “we must do X”. 891 says “we must do Y”. The problem comes when fulfilling one of them includes the rejection of the other. There are situations where either one can be satisfied, but not both. How are we to resolve that conflict? Which command that we must do something do we get to ignore, and on what basis can you claim to be justified in choosing one over the other?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Again it comes back to the source of your “must”. Of authority.
There is no external must, be it that of the CCC or that of the Ratzinger statement.

I understand that. I’m pointing out that if one accepts the catechism statement in 1800 that we “must” follow our conscience (Thomas White’s point) then what basis is there for rejecting catechism statement 891 that we “must” adhere to infallible doctrines? One may rationally reject the entire catechism but there is no rational way to claim that we are bound by 1800 but not by 891. This is not a statement about the validity of either of them, only that you cannot have one without the other.

The CCC “must” is certainly external and ultimately meaningless in the face of a certain conscience.

Who says the certain conscience makes the final decision? The church? You’ve already rejected that as external and meaningless. What this comes down to is that you have decided that you have the final word on what is moral, but if each of us decides what is moral what that really means is that morality doesn’t actually exist.

The point above is that the “must” of the Church is external Ender.
It only has as much authority as I give it internally.

In your view you are personally the final arbiter of right and wrong. But then so must I be and everyone else, and you have no argument that your personal ethics are more valid than anyone else’s. You have no argument that Mother Theresa was more moral than the Marquis de Sade.

So Cardinal Ratzingers “must” is not the same as that of the CCC Ender.
That is why it is erroneous to compare the two authorities and pit them against each other.

You believe his comment is merely a statement of fact, while doctrines are merely opinions that don’t actually represent truths. Well, you may hold whatever opinion you like, but you cannot insist that others reach the same conclusion. If you are free to decide what is or is not true then that freedom exists for everyone.

Internal versus external authority.

As I said, you cannot claim internal authority for yourself and deny it to others. If you are free to decide moral questions as you choose then so are we all.A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. … No one can fail to realize that those approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. (Veritatis splendor #56)
Before you reject this as an example of external authority that may be dismissed, understand that it is not a statement of doctrine. It is a logical assessment of the implications of the the belief system you have just expressed.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Perhaps this abstract debate can be made real by analysing the actions of Dr Perl.
nytimes.com/1982/11/15/style/out-of-death-a-zest-for-life.html

Let us assume (contrary to reality) that Dr Perl were a Catholic and knew full well the teaching that murdering an innocent is always and everywhere wrong - an intrinsic evil.

If while knowing this, Dr Perl felt her conscience tells her to abort babies (see the link for the reason and circumstances) would Dr Perl be obligated to refrain from abortion (in deference to unequivocal doctrine) or to follow her conscience and abort babies? If it is Perl’s testimony that she acted on the guidance of conscience, could that in fact be correct, or must it be the case that she was driven by something else?

 

[Rau]

How would you answer the 2 questions I posed at the end of my prior post?

 

[Rau]

“If her decision violated God’s law?” That sidesteps the question. The Church teaches something unequivocably as evil, and Perl did it. Did Perl violate God’s law? I presume you mean that she did - because the Church teaches God’s law.

Your conclusion thus is that her conscience erred. What then should be made of the exhortation to follow one’s conscience above all else?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand that. I’m pointing out that if one accepts the catechism statement in 1800 that we “must” follow our conscience (Thomas White’s point) then what basis is there for rejecting catechism statement 891 that we “must” adhere to infallible doctrines?

I don’t need 1800 to know the truth of it. To me it is self evident even if not in the CCC.
Re 891 it’s not self evident. As yet my conscience hasn’t caused me to reject it. I suppose it’s possible in theory to formulate a situation … eg the Pope infallibly declares some adulterers may publicly receive without abstaining.

One may rationally reject the entire catechism but there is no rational way to claim that we are bound by 1800 but not by 891.

Why is conscience an all or nothing situation for you? If one has made a decision to join the Church and been formed by it for 50 years one is not going to suddenly wake up and reject all Church teaching on conscience grounds. That is not rational. One may have a few things one grows to disagree with and while publicly holding the line sometimes feel in conscience to act differently from what principles might suggest in one’s own private life.

This is not a statement about the validity of either of them, only that you cannot have one without the other

. As above this does not appear to be self evident.

Who says the certain conscience makes the final decision?

It’s a self evident principle of nature to me. I saw the truth of it immediately when first taught the concept in form one by the Marist Brothers. The Church, and Fr Ratzinger, also agree.

What this comes down to is that you have decided that you have the final word on what is moral.

Of course, as do you by means of your own personal interpretation of what the Church “correctly” teaches…and if anyone critiques your understanding they are obviously heretics. Does that include Pope Francis .

In your view you are personally the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Yes a certain conscience is for practical decisions in my own life … that is why we must follow it just as the Church teaches.
That does not make me, or you, the arbiter of objective reality…we may both be wrong.

But then so must I be and everyone else, and you have no argument that your personal ethics are more valid than anyone else’s.

What are you on about?
I am not forcing you to live my morality…though I am not sure the reverse is true.

If you are free to decide moral questions as you choose then so are we all.

Of course. You must decide how to apply the Church’s teachings in your own private life and I mine. We may decide differently on a few points.
As for deciding the truth of over arching moral systems and universal principles … I leave that mostly to the teachers. I’m an individual tree hugger rather than a wood seeker. Sometimes I see a grove now and then.

 

[goout]

Perhaps this abstract debate can be made real by analysing the actions of Dr Perl.
nytimes.com/1982/11/15/style/out-of-death-a-zest-for-life.html

Let us assume (contrary to reality) that Dr Perl were a Catholic and knew full well the teaching that murdering an innocent is always and everywhere wrong - an intrinsic evil.

If while knowing this, Dr Perl felt her conscience tells her to abort babies (see the link for the reason and circumstances) would Dr Perl be obligated to refrain from abortion (in deference to unequivocal doctrine) or to follow her conscience and abort babies? If it is Perl’s testimony that she acted on the guidance of conscience, could that in fact be correct, or must it be the case that she was driven by something else?

Her conscience is not unified with the voice of God and the Body of Christ, it is fragmented and distorted. It is not well formed. It exalts itself, not the truth of God. She is obligated to refrain from abortion. But, she also follows her fragmented conscience (cause that’s simply what we do). The fact that she follows her distorted conscience does not excuse her immoral actions.
CCC sec’s 1790-1794 must be kept in mind.

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand that. I’m pointing out that if one accepts the catechism statement in 1800 that we “must” follow our conscience (Thomas White’s point) then what basis is there for rejecting catechism statement 891 that we “must” adhere to infallible doctrines? One may rationally reject the entire catechism but there is no rational way to claim that we are bound by 1800 but not by 891. This is not a statement about the validity of either of them, only that you cannot have one without the other.

Ender

You theoretical hypothesis is that CCC 1800 and 891 could conflict. It is illogical. If the thesis of the CCC is that both 891 and 1800 are true, then obedience to both would necessarily be true and in accordance with God’s law.

Where is the concrete example of your theoretical conflict?

 

[Ginny89]

I understand that, no one is claiming that the women priests are not following their consciences over what the Church teaches. I accept that.

But that does not exclude them from judicial censor. The Church commits no act of injustice in barring them from Holy Communion. Likewise, any who act on judgements of conscience in ways that violate Church teaching. The Church has no obligation what-so-ever to respect that judgement.*

If a priest, in accordance with his conscience, violates a specific directive from the bishop or the Pope, or even declares himself to be a sedevancantist; what right would that priest have to continue to be a pastor. Would the priest be able to claim CCC 1800 as a means to*not be suspended?

So you have not made any connection between CCC 1800 and AL.

Yes, people have to obey their consciences, but the Church is under no obligation to accept that judgement and to give them what they ask for.*

Do*you disagree?

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say in the other long debate that was merged but had no words to put it as eloquently or clearly.

My issue is not so much the remarried couple’s actions as it is that of the CHURCH stating publicly that they can receive without annulment or renunciation first. THAT is my whole problem with this affair.

People will always be free to decide for themselves what is right or wrong deep in their conscience and God who alone accesses this part of us, who sees us to the core of our hearts will judge how legitimate such hidden choices are.

But the CHURCH which has no access to the soul of anyone must proceed on the basis of the objective truth she has received from her king and saviour and the objective facts she can discern and leave the rest to his mercy.

It is the CHURCH issuing permissions that contravene these public teachings that is scandalous to those of us troubled by this matter.

The church should act in the public forum based on the publicly available teachings she has been commissioned to proclaim to the end of the age. Let what remains in the inaccessible darkness of a person’s conscience be between that person and God.

 

[Ender]

I don’t need 1800 to know the truth of it. To me it is self evident even if not in the CCC.

Your argument is different than Thomas’s, and my rebuttal was directed at his position, not yours. My response to your position is different than my response to his.

I suppose it’s possible in theory to formulate a situation … eg the Pope infallibly declares some adulterers may publicly receive without abstaining.

No, actually it isn’t possible, but that’s a different rabbit hole.

Why is conscience an all or nothing situation for you?

It isn’t. The concern isn’t with whether the conscience has no role, but whether it is the ultimate determinant of good and evil.

If one has made a decision to join the Church and been formed by it for 50 years one is not going to suddenly wake up and reject all Church teaching on conscience grounds.

In practice that is probably true, until one realizes that in theory one is justified in doing so.

It’s a self evident principle of nature to me. I saw the truth of it immediately when first taught the concept in form one by the Marist Brothers. The Church, and Fr Ratzinger, also agree.

The Marist Brothers, the church, and Ratzinger are all external voices (your argument), and do not override what the individual internally believes. If I happen to believe it is self evident that the strong can take from the weak, no argument can refute that.

Of course, as do you by means of your own personal interpretation of what the Church “correctly” teaches…

I don’t categorize church doctrines as correct and incorrect. I assume the doctrines are correct although I don’t necessarily assume that I understand them correctly.

Yes a certain conscience is for practical decisions in my own life … that is why we must follow it just as the Church teaches.

You cannot appeal to church teaching on one hand and dismiss it as merely an external opinion on the other. Either church teaching is relevant - in which case you have to reconcile the obligations expressed in 1800 and 891 - or it is not relevant in which case you cannot cite her positions as meaningful.

If the certain conscience is your ultimate expression of what you must do, fine. That is your personal choice. Having made it, however, you must acknowledge that others have the same right to make that decision for themselves. Certainly your rights are no different than anyone else’s. That being the case, if each of us is free to create his own morality there is no possibility of critiquing anyone else. In such a world we can no more insist that murder is immoral than we can say preferring vanilla to chocolate is immoral. If there is no objective standard of morality external to what the individual believes then morality cannot exist.

I am not forcing you to live my morality…

True. But if morality is nothing more than what each individual believes the concept of morality is empty of meaning.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You theoretical hypothesis is that CCC 1800 and 891 could conflict. It is illogical. If the thesis of the CCC is that both 891 and 1800 are true, then obedience to both would necessarily be true and in accordance with God’s law.

Where is the concrete example of your theoretical conflict?

A surprising number of people have concluded that women can be priests. Their conscience tells them that this is true. Given that they must follow the inclination of their conscience they are bound to act in accordance with that belief.

The church, however, has explicitly declared as infallible doctrine that women cannot be priests. According to 1800 the individual who believes this is true must support the idea of priestesses. According to 891 he must renounce it.

The same argument could be made with any number of examples: abortion, torture, and probably even contraception. The point is that examples do exist where the obligations of 1800 conflict with the obligations of 891, and you have available to you no mechanism for resolving the contradiction.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

No, it is a very specific command: it refers to all infallible doctrines. These are what “must be adhered to.”
I don’t contest what Ratzinger said. I’m pointing out that your understanding of 1800 sets up a conflict with 891. 1800 says “we must do X”. 891 says “we must do Y”. The problem comes when fulfilling one of them includes the rejection of the other. There are situations where either one can be satisfied, but not both. How are we to resolve that conflict? Which command that we must do something do we get to ignore, and on what basis can you claim to be justified in choosing one over the other?

Ender

Again, what Cardinal Ratzinger said is not the point. CCC 1776 and 1800 are the point. CCC 891 concerns infallible doctrine–i.e., “belief as being divinely revealed”. How could the natural law inscribed by God on a person’s heart (CCC 1776) possibly be in conflict with a belief divinely revealed when the source is one and the same? This is yours to explain.

 

[Thomas_White]

A surprising number of people have concluded that women can be priests. Their conscience tells them that this is true. Given that they must follow the inclination of their conscience they are bound to act in accordance with that belief.

Tell us how a woman could act on this belief, which for her would be to become a Catholic priest?

The church, however, has explicitly declared as infallible doctrine that women cannot be priests. According to 1800 the individual who believes this is true must support the idea of priestesses. According to 891 he must renounce it.

No. CCC 1800 states that a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. When the question is women priests, it is moot. It can’t happen; the act is not possible. I think perhaps the confusion is in not grasping that obeying the certain judgment of conscience concerns the actions of the individual person.

The same argument could be made with any number of examples: abortion, torture, and probably even contraception. The point is that examples do exist where the obligations of 1800 conflict with the obligations of 891, and you have available to you no mechanism for resolving the contradiction.

Ender

Really? Is there a contradiction? What is the source of natural law that a person’s certain judgment of conscience must obey?