The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Vico]

That’s interesting. Why do you say that Vico?

Because of the infallibility of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Also note from the Catechism teaching that the notion of autonomy of conscience is a mistake.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

[goout]

Certain judgement. A deformed conscience or on opposing the Church is not a certain judgement.

Of course.

I made this point about 80 posts ago.

People are jumping through hoops to excuse and justify bad-faith formation and erroneous judgement.
Once again:

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But **he must always seriously seek what is right and good **and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

The catechism expresses the call to live in good faith, seeking the good, not excusing the bad.
Minimalism is never an option.
The conscience is called by God to be **unified **with the objective good, which speaks in the conscience and is expressed by the Church. Setting the conscience apart in false autonomy is not seeking this unity.
This basic concept is lost in this thread, in fact it is not even acknowledged (probably out of conveniece).

 

[Ender]

What nonsense, how can any intelligent person hold this.

Perhaps if you read more carefully you wouldn’t jump to such a conclusion, or feel justified in expressing it so unpleasantly.

Nobody sees the absolute truth of particulars, it is always interpreted through the lens of our own limitations. That is why truth is the same yet we all see it differently to some extent.

Let’s review what I said:*Truth is the same for us all whether or not we recognize what it is.
*There is one Truth, one divine law…whether or not we recognize what it is. Truth is the same for everyone. Now how we understand that truth clearly differs from one individual to the next, and while people may possess different parts of that truth, the parts cannot be contradictory. But given that I said people may not recognize the truth that should have been a pretty big indication that “truth is the same…” (exactly my point) “…yet we all see it differently to some extent” (which would be because we don’t always “recognize what it is”).

Since your comment is essentially the same as mine it would seem there is a way an intelligent person can believe it.

Just like the elephant and the four blind men.

I thought there were at least six of them, but anyway, while what one man senses may differ from that of another, their conclusions, to be true, cannot contradict one another. (Truth is the same for all whether or not they recognize what it is.)

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I probably agree with this. The exhortation to love is non-specific as to means and degree. However, I suspect our souls may not remain as white as the driven snow when we pass-by on the other side of the road.

I think it is that the conscience does not, in itself, compel action. The will is involved in the decision to either act or not in a particular situation. This decision would seem to involve pure reason which concerns what one ought to do as an imperative.

But Thomas - the first part of the first question I put to you was not about acting on conscience, but rather refraining: "Would the Dr (notwithstanding her conscience sanctioning abortion - perhaps it even exhorting her to it…) be obligated to refrain from abortion in deference to unequivocal Church doctrine? Apologies if I’m mistaken - but I don’t think you’ve answered this.

No, I do not believe so. CCC 1800 is clear.

 

[Ender]

The certain judgment of her conscience, which concerns the act in itself (i.e., abortion) does not compel her to act. It only tells her whether to perform the act (i.e., to perform abortions) would be right or wrong in the circumstances.

The conscience can also tell someone that not taking an action is wrong. There are sins of omission as well as of commission. It is not accurate to say the conscience cannot compel us to act. In the Penitential rite do we not say* I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do?
*But it seems I may have to change my position regarding whether we can ever be in a position where we sin (ignore culpability for the moment) regardless of whether we choose to act or not act. Take abortion. If I choose to have one for whatever reason I commit a sin (material or formal), but if I truly believe I ought to have one for any number of compelling (but nonetheless inadequate) reasons, then I commit a sin of omission by failing to do what my conscience impels me to do.

I think the reason a person can end up in such a predicament is explained by Ratzinger’s observation that:* It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place…
*That is, the fault lies in coming to the conclusion that an abortion is justifiable. Making that initial error is what led to the situation where deciding either to have an abortion or not have one is a sin, albeit for different offenses.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps if you read more carefully you wouldn’t jump to such a conclusion, or feel justified in expressing it so unpleasantly.
Let’s review what I said:*Truth is the same for us all whether or not we recognize what it is.
*There is one Truth, one divine law…whether or not we recognize what it is. Truth is the same for everyone. Now how we understand that truth clearly differs from one individual to the next, and while people may possess different parts of that truth, the parts cannot be contradictory. But given that I said people may not recognize the truth that should have been a pretty big indication that “truth is the same…” (exactly my point) “…yet we all see it differently to some extent” (which would be because we don’t always “recognize what it is”).

Since your comment is essentially the same as mine it would seem there is a way an intelligent person can believe it.
I thought there were at least six of them, but anyway, while what one man senses may differ from that of another, their conclusions, to be true, cannot contradict one another. (Truth is the same for all whether or not they recognize what it is.)

Ender

You seem to have forgotten that your original assertion was that if consciences vary then they have no relationship with absolute truth, and so presumably a poor relationship with God.
Absolute bunkim.

It is exactly by following the voice of conscience in daily practical life that we keep following God even if our certain judgements of conscience are not always objectively true.
You confuse philosophy with morality, Plato with Christ on this point.

Just as a watches that are 10 minutes, or 5 mins or 10 secs slow still practically speaking do a good job tracking the true time of day despite their various errors and being at odds with one another. In fact all clocks have errors, even atomic clocks. Just as the CCC says, correcting conscience is the work of a lifetime.

You must get terribly disappointed to find every watch you buy is wrong and doing its own thing. It’s a deep betrayal of the one Time .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Certain judgement. A deformed conscience or on opposing the Church is not a certain judgement.

Again I would suggest this is a complete misunderstanding of the word “certain” as used in moral theology re conscience. That is if you are referring to a “certain judgement of conscience” (certain conscience)

Likewise your use of the word “deformed” which I have never seen used as an adjective re conscience in moral theology texts. The correct word is either ignorant or erroneous I believe.

Hence the expression “a certain but erroneous conscience” is perfectly acceptable…and it must be followed. One must also endeavour to correct it if legitimate authority suggests it is erroneous.

Where are you sourcing your views on conscience?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe this article well explains the difference between the terms certain and correct.

Note that a vincibly erroneous conscience, by definition, cannot be certain.
However an invincably erroneous one may.

The difference between a certain and a correct conscience
There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term “correct” describes the objective truth of the person’s judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term “certain” describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:

1. A certain and correct conscience.

1. A certain but erroneous conscience.

Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual’s conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and “freaks of nature.”

In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.

What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn’s personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.

If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn’t seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.

Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.

lasalettejourney.blogspot.co.nz/2005/05/difference-between-certain-and-correct.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The conscience can also tell someone that not taking an action is wrong. There are sins of omission as well as of commission. It is not accurate to say the conscience cannot compel us to act. In the Penitential rite do we not say* I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do*?
But it seems I may have to change my position regarding whether we can ever be in a position where we sin (ignore culpability for the moment) regardless of whether we choose to act or not act. Take abortion. If I choose to have one for whatever reason I commit a sin (material or formal), but if I truly believe I ought to have one for any number of compelling (but nonetheless inadequate) reasons, then I commit a sin of omission by failing to do what my conscience impels me to do.

I think the reason a person can end up in such a predicament is explained by Ratzinger’s observation that:* It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place…
*That is, the fault lies in coming to the conclusion that an abortion is justifiable. Making that initial error is what led to the situation where deciding either to have an abortion or not have one is a sin, albeit for different offenses.

Ender

I do not think it surprising that one can be in a position of sinning whatever way we choose whether it be to act or not to act. But one of those choices (if not both) may not be imputable.

Doesn’t the just man sin 10 times a day (or is it 6 or possibly 4)?

Your interpretation of C.Ratz above looks accurate to me.

To have a certain conscience that one sins by not assisting in an abortion (as opposed to being certain that assisting is sinful) seems unlikely for a reasonably well educated Catholic and would be suggestive of compulsion or neurosis re helping others rather than conscience.

 

[goout]

I believe this article well explains the difference between the terms certain and correct.

Note that a vincibly erroneous conscience, by definition, cannot be certain.
However an invincably erroneous one may.

lasalettejourney.blogspot.co.nz/2005/05/difference-between-certain-and-correct.html

This is nothing like a solid Catholic source.
Just one piece of evidence:
lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2016/11/francis-notion-of-what-constitutes.html?m=1

This is why he puts the creature before the Creator. This is why he condemns traditional Catholics as “rigid” and “sick,” even while showing great respect for active sodomites who demand a change in Church teaching, such as Simon Cazal. See here.

If anyone is sick, it’s Francis. See Romans 1: 25.

Why don’t you stick to the CCC as a starting point?

 

[Thomas_White]

The conscience can also tell someone that not taking an action is wrong. There are sins of omission as well as of commission. It is not accurate to say the conscience cannot compel us to act. In the Penitential rite do we not say* I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do*?

The judgment of conscience can compel a person to act?
Ender;14446249:
But it seems I may have to change my position regarding whether we can ever be in a position where we sin (ignore culpability for the moment) regardless of whether we choose to act or not act. Take abortion. If I choose to have one for whatever reason I commit a sin (material or formal), but if I truly believe I ought to have one for any number of compelling (but nonetheless inadequate) reasons, then I commit a sin of omission by failing to do what my conscience impels me to do.

I think the reason a person can end up in such a predicament is explained by Ratzinger’s observation that:* It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place…*
The quote continues: “…by having stifled the anamnesis of being * the guilt then lies in a different place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty.”

Which is to say Hitler and Stalin are guilty of their actions*.

And here this was made clear: “It is of course undisputed that one must follow the certain judgment of conscience or at least not act again it.” --Cardinal Ratzinger, Conscience and Truth, paragraph 2 (emphasis added)

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM
That is, the fault lies in coming to the conclusion that an abortion is justifiable. Making that initial error is what led to the situation where deciding either to have an abortion or not have one is a sin, albeit for different offenses.

Ender

The mere decision that it would be justified to either have or not have an abortion is a sin? How is it a sin to not act against the judgment of conscience? It’s not what Cardinal Ratzinger said–i.e., that a person must at least not act against the certain judgment of conscience. It suffices. Not acting by having an abortion is thus not to act against that judgment. A person might wonder why it is necessary to state the obvious, but it is necessary to do so if the logical errors that unfold from the incorrect premise that conscience can compel a person to act are to be untangled.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is nothing like a solid Catholic source.
Just one piece of evidence:
lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2016/11/francis-notion-of-what-constitutes.html?m=1

Why don’t you stick to the CCC as a starting point?

If you think this is a courtroom where people must prove their innocence or refute their guilt with robust evidence you’ve got it all wrong my friend.

I am simply presenting a very readable explanation of what is summarily presented in the CCC so confused or less educated readers here may have a clearer understanding. It is classic Aquinas … as is the CCC.

Sure, the guy is very conservative and seems opposed to AL and Pope Francis’s direction…as are many here. But it is interesting that despite his conservatism he does explain traditional teaching on conscience clearly and well. Then again, he is formally theologically educated unlike a number of very vocal contributors here.

It isn’t just pro-Francis liberals who have this understanding of conscience that posters like Ender cannot accept.

The problem is not whether one is liberal or conservative at all.
The problem is likely that many vocal but untrained lay Catholics think they understand the finer points of their faith when in fact they do not. A hard truth for some.

I don’t care at all if you wish to remain in error and need more evidential convincing to change your misunderstandings on Church teaching. If that is where you are at, and you do seek to be informed, I suggest you take up a paper of two in Moral Theology at a nearby Catholic Uni or buy yourself a Moral Theology Manual (eg Prummer).

 

[goout]

If you think this is a courtroom where people must prove their innocence or refute their guilt with robust evidence you’ve got it all wrong my friend.

I am simply presenting a very readable explanation of what is summarily presented in the CCC so confused or less educated readers here may have a clearer understanding. It is classic Aquinas … as is the CCC.

Sure, the guy is very conservative and seems opposed to AL and Pope Francis’s direction…as are many here.

Here’s exactly what I am saying, just so there’s no confusion:
The website you referenced is fringe Catholic from a guy who is abusive to the Pope and Catholicism in general.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when other posters refer to the CCC in good faith, and you respond with whatever garbage comes to the top of a google keyword search, with no investigation on your part?
And on the other hand you have claimed formal training in moral theology.
If you had formal training in moral theology you might have some solid references.

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Rau]

…To have a certain conscience that one sins by not assisting in an abortion (as opposed to being certain that assisting is sinful) seems unlikely for a reasonably well educated Catholic…

To have a certain judgement of conscience that aborting is a good act ought be very difficult for an informed catholic. I would think the knowledge that the Church holds definitive doctrine opposed to abortion, that holds it is always wrong, is likely to mean that an actor’s claim to a certain conscience favoring abortion cannot be right. Perhaps their judgement that the act would be good is a balance of probabilities assessment not rising to the level of “certain”. It is easy to understand why one could be well advised to follow doctrine. To doubt fallible conscience in favour of definitive church doctrine is not unreasonable.

 

[Ender]

I believe this article well explains the difference between the terms certain and correct.

Note that a vincibly erroneous conscience, by definition, cannot be certain.
However an invincibly erroneous one may.

lasalettejourney.blogspot.co.nz/2005/05/difference-between-certain-and-correct.html

I have no problem with any of this. There are two comments in it I want to address, the first is one you pointed out: the vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be certain. So the question is: if the individual (especially a Catholic) is aware of church doctrine prohibiting a particular act, but commits it anyway, is it possible to consider his ignorance invincible? We know vincible ignorance includes the willful decision not to search for the truth, so what kind of ignorance is it that finds the truth and rejects it, which would be the case of a Catholic who knows what the church teaches but rejects it in favor of his own understanding? I don’t think there is a good argument to be made that it is invincible ignorance.

The second point goes to Thomas White’s objection that the conscience can only compel us not to act negatively, but cannot compel us to act positively. The following is an example of being compelled by the conscience to act.Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn’s personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew* he had a responsibility to enter that Church**.
*I think any number of examples can be imagined, but this one from real life seems sufficient to make the point.

Ender

 

[Ender]

To have a certain conscience that one sins by not assisting in an abortion (as opposed to being certain that assisting is sinful) seems unlikely for a reasonably well educated Catholic and would be suggestive of compulsion or neurosis re helping others rather than conscience.

There are any number of reasonable sounding arguments for having an abortion in particularly difficult situations. If a woman found herself in one of those situations it could easily seem that abortion was the better solution, that choosing not to have one would engender hardship not just for herself but others as well. If she believes that an abortion is not a sin, and that having one is the better option for all concerned, what is the argument that she should ignore her conscience and not have the procedure? Her conscience is telling her (erroneously) that the lives of those most intimately associated with her (obviously not including the fetus) would be better if she has the abortion. How is she not culpable for acting (by choosing not to have the abortion) in a way she believes will be harmful to others?

The conscience can compel us to act, where not acting would be a sin. What else would constitute a sin of omission?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The judgment of conscience can compel a person to act?

Yes, I think this is clearly the case. See posts #219, and #220. How is not doing something where I believe my inaction will lead to hardship and suffering any different than doing something where I believe my action will have the same result?*Moralists took pains formerly to show that the inaction implied in an omission was quite compatible with a breach of the moral law, for it is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. *(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Ender

 

[Rau]

Yes, I think this is clearly the case. See posts #219, and #220. How is not doing something where I believe my inaction will lead to hardship and suffering any different than doing something where I believe my action will have the same result?*Moralists took pains formerly to show that the inaction implied in an omission was quite compatible with a breach of the moral law, for it is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. *(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Ender

So what extent of alms giving to the poor and suffering is necessary to avoid sin? That which satisfies conscience?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here’s exactly what I am saying, just so there’s no confusion:
The website you referenced is fringe Catholic from a guy who is abusive to the Pope and Catholicism in general.

I don’t care.
His article on conscience is very well written and conforms perfectly with traditional Church teaching, the CCC and Aquinas. I suspect its accuracy and depth his due to his formal training or he has plagiarised a theologian. Do note he wrote this in 2005 well before he evidently turned against some of Pope Francis’s writings - which many good Catholics here on CAF have also done.

And it comes from a conservative anti AL perspective so no one can say he is just another Pope Francis worshipper .

We get it you are a person who is only swayed by authority and character and not by reason or logical argument or the accuracy of the writing itself.
Oh, except when the person with authority disagrees with you, then you belittle their formal education even though you have none by comparision .

How can you expect to be taken seriously when other posters refer to the CCC in good faith, and you respond with whatever garbage comes to the top of a google keyword search, with no investigation on your part?

Unlike you I don’t care my friend.
If you think its garbage and are confident of your position and you have nothing to learn just move on. Or should I say “certain of your position” as in “erroneously certain” .

Others less confident than you may find that lucid article on conscience , and my endorsement of it, helpful. If not people are welcome to critique it with me. Not you though sorry, you seem, to lack the requisite tranquil attitude needed for fruitful converse.

If you had formal training in moral theology you might have some solid references.

Not for you, as per Mt 7:6 sorry.

 

[goout]

I don’t care.
His article on conscience is very well written and conforms perfectly with traditional Church teaching, the CCC and Aquinas.

And it comes from a conservative anti AL perspective so no one can say he is just another Pope Francis worshipper .

We get it you are a person who is only swayed by authority and character and not by reason or logical argument or the accuracy of the writing itself.

The source you quoted (so tiresome) is wildly right wing abusive to the Pope.
You clearly just googled some material up without investigating the source.
The source is unreliable. Can you do better?

You have no basis whatsoever to criticize other posters who quote from solid sources like the CCC.

You criticism of me is baseless and you should apologize.