B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Well if you cannot argue your case for seeing things that aren’t in the text by all means walk away self satisfied even if other readers, whom I assume you write to sway, are left scratching their heads
.
- Status
.
R
Rau
Guest
You chose the language of your post to omit the morally significant issue. “Choosing who will die” does not in itself mean “contrary to anything the church teaches.” Whereas a decision to murder would of course be contrary. I don’t find that statement smug. I’m still at home - not walked anywhere. And I was (and am again) the last to post. So……I just gave you a real example of how conscience decisions work for me.
And you make a trite throw away statement and smugly walk away without discussion.
R
Rau
Guest
We know such act fails the test for an act to be moral. I doubt the one who commits it is condemned to hell - the circumstances likely placed extreme pressure on the actor.
E
Ender
Guest
That’s not the point. The issue is whether the conscience can compel someone to act. Clearly there are situations where the conscience believes inaction is the immoral approach. Not to act when the conscience says one should is every bit as immoral as acting when the conscience says one should not. As I asked before: what else could a sin of omission be except not acting when one should?
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Of course it is the point. It was in reply to your example that the conscience could compel a person to join a certain church and that it would be a sin of omission not to do so. I disagree. It may well be a reasonable decision to do so, but it is not a judgment of conscience.
R
Rau
Guest
Cardinal Mueller comments on AL:
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pope-franciss-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share
Related thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1040448
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pope-franciss-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share
Related thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1040448
R
Rau
Guest
The Circumstances of an act which is intrinsically evil often determine whether the sin is judged mortal or venial. And yes, for us, that judgement may be foggy.
Commentary on lying: newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
E
Ender
Guest
Can the conscience compel a person to act or is it limited simply to compelling a person not to act?*It is right and just, always and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which is his due and to honor one’s parents as they deserve. Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions…are universally binding… *(Veritatis splendor #52)
It would seem just as we know we are not to perform certain bad actions that we also know we are to perform certain good actionsl. If we choose not to do what we believe is right either by acting or not acting we commit the same offense against our conscience.
Ender
V
Vico
Guest
Ask a question, scratcher. I provided the Catechism support in my posts.Well if you cannot argue your case for seeing things that aren’t in the text by all means walk away self satisfied even if other readers, whom I assume you write to sway, are left scratching their heads
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Does one need to provide you a formal invitation
.As before, against my better judgement as your inadvertence is bordering on the disingenuous
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You just walked away calling it murder? That is a practical judgement that is not crystal so people may differ.
The issue at hand here is clearly not what you subjectivly think it is.
The issue is whether, knowing Church natural law teaching, it is possible for me to make a certain but erroneous practical judgement of conscience that this is not abortion but self defence of my wife.
You appear to state this is impossible because abortion is a natural law teaching of the Church. I am demonstrating that conscience decisions are usually application of principles and are not often a speculative denial of such principles at all. Conscience is usually a concrete/practicaljudgement which principles do or do not actually apply in the case in question. No natural law is intentionally denied.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I don’t see that the conscience compels a person to either act or not act. The certain judgment of conscience, which a person must obey, tells a person whether an act would be good or evil were he to perform it. A person may well have a moral obligation to do so, but the decision to act concerns reason and the will to act.
I am not sure what this has to do with the 5th dubium. The OP (yours) concerns whether a person is justified in ignoring Church doctrine because (as you say) a person cannot in good conscience accept it. The short answer is no, not if a person ignores Church doctrine and just does his own thing, but I don’t think this is what you meant. However, the use of the word “because” in the OP introduces a causal connection between the judgment of conscience and acting, and this supposed connection, a given in the OP, is what you are now attempting to establish.
V
Vico
Guest
You want to go over autonomy? First from the Catechism we see one application of mistaken autonomy, one opposed to the teaching of the Church.Does one need to provide you a formal invitation
As before, against my better judgement as your inadvertence is bordering on the disingenuous
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65
Secondly, read some excerpts from the CDF Doctrinal Note on The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, which are addressing the confusion of autonomy between political and civil vs. religious.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html:
For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality – is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization.[23] John Paul II has warned many times of the dangers which follow from confusion between the religious and political spheres.
…
By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.
R
Rau
Guest
I made no judgement. I asked what you had in mind. I noted that options may or may not be murder.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Can you try and maintain consistency with the discussion.
You previously stated
I now have no idea what you are on about - you had already decided I somehow missed out something of moral significance by not calling what the senses see as “murder”.
In point of fact you are apparently the one who limited the moral discussion right from the start by assuming what my senses see MUST be the moral evil of abortion (because the Church has somehow said what I concretely see/infer must be abortion no exceptions) …and hence murder.
This is a ludicrous way of undertaking moral analysis of particular concrete circumstances. and applying Catholic moral principles.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
(a) You missed my far more important second invitation to explain yourself on your apparent denial of the Catholic necessity of following a certain conscience even if erroneous (Church Teaching);
(b) how do you see this understanding of conscience conflicting with JPII above exactly.
I see no largely connection with conscience at all - let alone a mistaken autonomy of conscience.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Why do you conclude that error of understanding (and hence non acceptance in this particular situation) is rejection of teaching authority?
Do you also think “teaching” is “commanding” and does not involve personal interior assimilation?
And if I don’t believe you understand the concrete situation as well as I do and that your interpretation of what is happening is mistaken and in fact other legitimate principles apply…why should I be punished in my life choices by God for your view of my personal life?
If a Catholic calls something “an act of abortion” that means it is intrinsically evil no ifs buts or exceptions.
First up you might like to clarify whether it is your above “loss of a fetal life” that is intrinsically evil … or only “an act of abortion” that is intrinsically evil?
Quite an important distinction when discussing any loss of fetal life situation.
It may not be “abortion” at all so far as the erroneous conscience is concerned. No denial of natural law in their mind. So entirely possible to be blamelessly erroneous in the concrete judgement of this particular situation.
When you get your vocab confusions sorted and consistently use the word “abortion” the same way in all your statements maybe we can continue this particular topic.
There is always room for dispute in applying and matching the correct moral principles to a unique concrete and particular situation surely? The Church teaches principles not 100,000 different judgements for the unique 100,000+ concrete situations encountered every day by the faithful in their own personal lives.
What an absurdly binary way of looking at a complex reality.
Did you lose faith in your dad’s authority or later views just because he made a mistake when he strapped you for something you didn’t do at the age of 12?
Another absurdly binary view. Sure, some Catholics live like this and who am I to knock it.
But to raise such an idiosyncratic stance to the level of pure logic and suggest that other Catholics who do not seem to live that way are not only erroneous but irrational is itself irrational and erroneous
.The logic simply isn’t there - its a projection of your own not unusual personality type that is uncomfortable with ambiguity.
R
Rau
Guest
No Blue. You spoke about deciding who would die. This does not address the morally significant issue - eg: is a person to receive live-saving treatment (eg. licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy or for various other maternal conditions), or is a(nother) person to be killed (eg. a direct abortion to bring about benefit for another) . Both amount to a decision about who will die. One licit, the other not. I do not know what you have in mind (nor do I need to know).
You’ve demonstrated a terrible “jump to conclusion” here Blue.
R
Rau
Guest
IMHO - this is obfuscation Blue. If an individual understands that the situation at hand - and more particularly the act contemplated - is NOT the act proscribed by the Church - then the conscience may not be tested much at all - certainly it is not needing to be weighed against the doctrine since the latter is believed not to be applicable.
Are we not concerned more particularly with the situation where the doctrine of the Church is clear in the mind of the actor, its application to just our situation is clear, yet the (perceived voice of fallible) conscience seems to be saying go ahead.
- Status