The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Rau]

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.

What is your response to post #129?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Of course it is, here and now, for me.
The problem is you confuse non imputability of my personal sins (which are non culpable precisely because I believe I am acting well and am not culpably ignorant) with universal “good”.

The Marist Brothers, the church, and Ratzinger are all external voices (your argument), and do not override what the individual internally believes.

So my point went over your head. These external voices allowed me to realise the self evident internal truth of my own understanding of conscience…which aligns with theirs and hence Church teaching. Not that it would change my certainty if it could be demonstrated Church Teaching was somewhat different.

f I happen to believe it is self evident that the strong can take from the weak, no argument can refute that.

obviously the truth of inner authority is different from a logical apriori tautology like this. A tautology cannot be denied…to do so indicates insanity. One person’s self evident truth can be denied by another without indicating insanity…nevertheless it is still irrefutable by mere argument. If one hears echoes of God’s voice within it is hard not to hear it.

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.

Surely in so far as you always interpret disputed teachings to suit your strict and conservative temperament you are just as much a moral relativist as those you criticise?
You just wear better clothes and say your subjective interpretation is the correct objective one and save a bit of face .

You cannot appeal to church teaching on one hand and dismiss it as merely an external opinion on the other.

I am not aware of appealing to any Church teaching for my authority other than to identify your contradictions. All Church teachings are external.
If they are meaningful to me it is because somewhere in the past, like you, I internally ratified them or the makers of them. That is not an irreversible affirmation nor an all or nothing situation…if unusual contradictions seem to arise that may mean, in a worst case scenario when they are unable to be resolved, the internal assent may get put on hold until resolved.
If the Church forced internal assent while in this messy state it would obviously not be possible and, as already stated, one would have to leave the Church if forced to decide.
While this is always a possibility I have not yet encountered an infallible teaching of such gravity that requires those who cannot internally assent to leave the Church.
I don’t think AL is such a one…though it may be for some.

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.

Of course, this is all very obvious and correct when acting in ones own private affairs from certain conscience. Why would anyone think otherwise.

That being the case, if each of us is free to create his own morality there is no possibility of critiquing anyone else.

Well that’s a complete non sequitur.
If you were a concerned friend I would be wanting to hear why you thought my private actions were damaging to me or my family. If you were not a friend or involved I would politely tell you to mind your own business.

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

It is self evident one can only live one’s own system of morality as constructed over the years as learnt from experience and from the good advice of trusted friends wiser than ourselves (the Church for me is included there). So yes, that sounds like “what each individual believes morality to be” as you rightly state. How can it be otherwise? Everybody does this, that’s why we all have differences of moral opinion.

Does that then mean the “concept of morality is meaningless”?
That’s a ridiculous conclusion.
If morality is founded in natural law then all people of good conscience will tend to act in the same way under identical practical circumstances and tend to hold to similar principles if understood the same way.
But it will never be a perfect match but rather a tendency as learning of natural law is a life long process and we all read and write less than perfectly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

By “right” do you mean correct or good?

My conscience is about as truthful as a crooked politician.

If that is so then you recognise your conscience is mostly doubtful…in which case you must follow the rules.

It is only when one’s conscience is certain that it must not be denied.
It would be over relatively isolated matters for a longtime Catholic and would be a relatively slowly dawning realisation I suggest if it involved “contradicting” Church teaching.

 

[JimG]

Well, if conscience is the supreme arbiter and authority, then I suppose that the priests of Malta or Argentina or anywhere else whose conscience confirms the constant teaching of the Church regarding communion for the divorced and remarried with no declaration of nullity, must obey their conscience even if it conflicts with their bishop.

 

[Rau]

So what is your answer to the questions posed in post #129?

 

[Thomas_White]

What then are we to make of CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

It has been a core teaching of the Church from its earliest days. By the way, it is “conscience” and not “conscious”. The thread is only confusing because a few are trying to reject this teaching in an attempt to objectify faith. This is the manifestation of a particular mindset that is both rigid and conservative. In its extreme it is authoritarian and will dictate what we must believe. That God has inscribed a law deep within man’s heart that he must obey is a matter of faith and belief.

I doubt the fact that both JPII and Benedict XVI lived during their youth under authoritarian regimes is any coincidence with respect to the recent emphasis on the conscience. There are many good reasons why a person must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience above all else. It also concerns the excuse that says, “I was only following orders.”

 

[Ender]

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

A person would act on this belief by publicly supporting the concept of women priests. Sister Helen Prejean is an example of someone who has done this. There are web sites supporting this idea (romancatholicwomenpriests.org, womenpriests.org). My point is that there are obviously a number of Catholics who support this concept and have acted on their belief.

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.

It is not moot, and as I have shown above, has clearly happened.

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

We are told by 891 that we must accept a teaching that is infallible. That women may not be priests has been declared infallible. 1800 tells us we must follow the dictates of our conscience, so if one’s conscience declares that women may be priests, while the church infallibly declares they may not, what are we to do? Do we continue to support the concept or do we renounce the idea? That is, do we obey what 1800 obliges us to do or what 891 obliges us to do? We cannot do both.

Let me add this: suppose it has been infallibly taught that abortion is intrinsically evil. If our conscience tells us it is not evil, may we procure an abortion in direct violation of the obligation given in 891?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, if conscience is the supreme arbiter and authority, then I suppose that the priests of Malta or Argentina or anywhere else whose conscience confirms the constant teaching of the Church regarding communion for the divorced and remarried with no declaration of nullity, must obey their conscience even if it conflicts with their bishop.

Obviously yes if they were in certain conscience opposed to the new possibilities allowed.
Why would you see that as significantly conflict url with their bishop?
All they need do is treat irregulars as before.
All a properly disposed couple need do if they feel they have a case for the new possibilities which this PP won’t consider is go to the bishop who may well refer them to a more aligned priest.

Priests and bishops have not been forced against their consciences on this issue.
Philadelphia draft has only given lip service to AL and clearly ignores the new possibilities. That seems tolerated by Rome.

The Church isn’t the army.

 

[Abynissa]

We are told by 981 that we must accept a teaching that is infallible. That women may not be priests has been declared infallible. 1800 tells us we must follow the dictates of our conscience, so if one’s conscience declares that women may be priests, while the church infallibly declares they may not, what are we to do? Do we continue to support the concept or do we renounce the idea? That is, do we obey what 1800 obliges us to do or what 981 obliges us to do? We cannot do both.

Ender

That women may not be priests has been declared infallible. What! There are only two doctrines that have been declared ex-cathedra and women priest is not one of them as far as I know.

My question concerning this debate. If y’all having problems understanding this issue “Re: The 5th dubium: the conscience” Please explain how a member of an indigenous tribe in the the Amazon or shepherd in Peru would understand what y’all discussing?

I’m trying to understand this Catholic viewpoint. If your conscience is sacrosanct or inviolate as Pope Benedict and the CCC has pointed out and which violation of it would condemn that person regardless of moral or ecclesiastic prohibition, does this not due away with evil itself?

If a schismatic or false shepherd teaches a doctrine he believes in his heart is true and is then excommunicated or considered anathema by the Catholic Church, is he not condemned to hell by that pronouncement? St Paul teaches this Gal 1:8-9 uses anathema. In referencing that word to St. Paul uses combo 1Cor 16:22 anathema, maranatha

Jewish law considering Anathema the most severe judgement is Maranatha, which purported that the criminal had nothing to expect but the final infliction of the Day of Judgment. He was loaded with execrations, excluded from temple and synagogue, his goods were confiscated, his sons debarred from circumcision and his daughters from marriage, and he solemnly remitted to the judgment of heaven. This was the curse the apostle invoked on himself or any one who preached another gospel.

A separation from the life of the church which causes the inability to avail oneself of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, the necessity of salvation would cause condemnation to hell.

So if the individual violates the moral and/or ecclesiastic law in order to follow his own conscience in order not to condemn himself, does it not cause that person to be eternally condemned to hell by God and/or ecclesiastic law under the binding/loosing authority given by the Church by Jesus? By his separation from the Christian body, is he not heaping grave sin after grave sin upon himself? How about a psychopath with out a conscience?

If you consider being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire(without the baptism of water) or because God is not limited to the Sacraments, as referring to hypothetical, speculative and personally unknown cases does this not rupture CCC 846 and 1257 according to the dogma EENS unless you use Feeneyite EENS?

 

[Thomas_White]

If you consider being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire(without the baptism of water) or because God is not limited to the Sacraments, as referring to hypothetical, speculative and personally unknown cases does this not rupture CCC 846 and 1257 according to the dogma EENS unless you use Feeneyite EENS?

No, but the point is well taken. CCC 846 is an instance where dogma was developed.

 

[Thomas_White]

A person would act on this belief by publicly supporting the concept of women priests. Sister Helen Prejean is an example of someone who has done this. There are web sites supporting this idea (romancatholicwomenpriests.org, womenpriests.org). My point is that there are obviously a number of Catholics who support this concept and have acted on their belief.

It is not persuasive that belief is a matter of conscience. Must a person who supports the concept of women priests publicly support that belief? It is what obeying the certain judgment of conscience would entail. Does a Catholic in a irregular marriage who believes it would not be wrong were he to receive communion but does not do so thereby fail to obey the certain judgment of his conscience? It is the difference between theoretical and practical reason. We will get to this in what follows.

But how many times must the plain, clear and unambiguous language of CCC 1800 be quoted before invincible ignorance becomes a legitimate question?

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience."

It is not moot, and as I have shown above, has clearly happened.
We are told by 891 that we must accept a teaching that is infallible. That women may not be priests has been declared infallible. 1800 tells us we must follow the dictates of our conscience, so if one’s conscience declares that women may be priests, while the church infallibly declares they may not, what are we to do? Do we continue to support the concepit or do we renounce the idea? That is, do we obey what 1800 obliges us to do or what 891 obliges us to do? We cannot do both.

What are we to do? Nothing. That one’s conscience could “declare that women may be priests” is at best disingenuous. The misunderstanding here is in confusing the natural law that God has inscribed on the heart of man with the a priori judgment of the intellect. That is, the certain judgment of the conscience is not arrived at by theoretical reason. It is the judgment of practical reason. It is theoretical (speculative) reason that would determine for us whether or not we should follow the teaching on abortion. Practical reason is the use of reason to determine how we should act. I could scarcely make this any clearer.

Let me add this: suppose it has been infallibly taught that abortion is intrinsically evil. If our conscience tells us it is not evil, may we procure an abortion in direct violation of the obligation given in 891?

Ender

Not without being responsible for our actions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What are we to do? Nothing. That one’s conscience could “declare that women may be priests” is at best disingenuous. The misunderstanding here is in confusing the natural law that God has inscribed on the heart of man with the a priori judgment of the intellect. That is, the certain judgment of the conscience is not arrived at by theoretical reason. It is the judgment of practical reason. It is theoretical (speculative) reason that would determine for us whether or not we should follow the teaching on abortion. Practical reason is the use of reason to determine how we should act. .

All good stuff.
Being picky the only thing I would note is that errors of conscience can extend to judgements of the speculative intellect re universals and even natural law…though of course far less frequently.
Aquinas goes into this somewhere re someone not realizing fornication is wrong.

But as you say mostly it’s judgements of the practical intellect that are erroneous.

 

[Ender]

That women may not be priests has been declared infallible. What! There are only two doctrines that have been declared ex-cathedra and women priest is not one of them as far as I know.

There are two ways a teaching may be infallible: one is an ex-cathedra pronouncement and, as you said, there have been only two of those, but the other is that it has been infallibly taught by the Magisterium. *Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. *(Lumen Gentium #25)
The teaching on women priests was declared to be infallible by this second method.

I’m trying to understand this Catholic viewpoint. If your conscience is sacrosanct or inviolate as Pope Benedict and the CCC has pointed out and which violation of it would condemn that person regardless of moral or ecclesiastic prohibition, does this not due away with evil itself?

In my mind, yes, it would. I think the problem is tied to how we understand the conscience.

So if the individual violates the moral and/or ecclesiastic law in order to follow his own conscience in order not to condemn himself, does it not cause that person to be eternally condemned to hell by God and/or ecclesiastic law under the binding/loosing authority given by the Church by Jesus?

This is the question. As someone asked earlier, suppose your conscience tells you to have an abortion. Is your choice now between going to hell for violating your conscience by not having it, or going to hell because you violate church teaching and have it? Obviously one cannot truly be in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation, but this is the issue being discussed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not without being responsible for our actions.

I used the example of women priests because I knew how to demonstrate that the teaching prohibiting them was infallible. Since you resisted the concept that one could be conscientiously bound to act on a belief that there ought to be priestesses, I changed to abortion as the example, but now you say the person is culpable for having an abortion even though her conscience says she is justified.

This then is exactly the point: the person’s conscience says abortions are moral even as the church teaches they are immoral without exception. 1800 says we must follow our conscience. 891 says we must adhere to infallible doctrine. What is a person to do in this circumstance?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I used the example of women priests because I knew how to demonstrate that the teaching prohibiting them was infallible. Since you resisted the concept that one could be conscientiously bound to act on a belief that there ought to be priestesses, I changed to abortion as the example, but now you say the person is culpable for having an abortion even though her conscience says she is justified.

This then is exactly the point: the person’s conscience says abortions are moral even as the church teaches they are immoral without exception. 1800 says we must follow our conscience. 891 says we must adhere to infallible doctrine. What is a person to do in this circumstance?

Ender

No. The comment was not that the person would be culpable for having an abortion. I don’t know. This was the comment: “Not without being responsible for our actions.” That a woman could have an abortion as the result of a certain judgment of her conscience that is without error is a presumption, and it is argumentative. What we do know is that many women who have experienced this are later troubled by feelings of guilt. That a person shall not kill is natural law and intrinsic to a person’s nature–by what God has inscribed on the heart of man. In that way, it is not possible that a person could have an abortion without erring.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. The comment was not that the person would be culpable for having an abortion. I don’t know. This was the comment: “Not without being responsible for our actions.” That a woman could have an abortion as the result of a certain judgment of her conscience that is without error is a presumption, and it is argumentative. What we do know is that many women who have experienced this are later troubled by feelings of guilt. That a person shall not kill is natural law and intrinsic to a person’s nature–by what God has inscribed on the heart of man. In that way, it is not possible that a person could have an abortion without erring.

You would believe one can only have abortion non culpably by reason of defective consent …not by defective understanding that what she does is wrong in any circumstance?

I would think it is possible for a number of reasons.
Thou shall not kill, though allegedly “natural law” in fact admits of exceptions as we all know.
Why cannot such a mother erroneously believe her situation is such an exception…eg self defence.

 

[Rau]

I again invite posters to answer the questions posed in post #129.

 

[goout]

I again invite posters to answer the questions posed in post #129.

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.

What are you looking for?

 

[Rau]

What are you looking for?

For posters - in a largely abstract debate - to respond to the concrete questions in post #129. You have responded already.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

It not only could but would be correct: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).