The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Vico]

(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.

St. Pope John Paul II wrote in a 1995 homily, Rights of Conscience Must be Defended:

He iwrote that “rulers forcibly imposed their own religious convictions on their subjects, violating the basic rights of conscience.” And he shows the mandate to be faithful to the infallible teachings of the Church:

“Our consciences must be based on truth.”

Example below is from the Biblical Comission (1909) stating the necessity to follow certain and definite teachings, but not on other teachings no so held, yet still to follow and defend the opinions which the Church has approved.

The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma.
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?
–Reply: In the affirmative.

The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany [From the letter, “Tuas libenter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 21, 1863], Denzinger

684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

St. Pope John Paul II wrote in a 1995 homily, Rights of Conscience Must be Defended:

He iwrote that “rulers forcibly imposed their own religious convictions on their subjects, violating the basic rights of conscience.” And he shows the mandate to be faithful to the infallible teachings of the Church:

“Our consciences must be based on truth.”

Example below is from the Biblical Comission (1909) stating the necessity to follow certain and definite teachings, but not on other teachings no so held, yet still to follow and defend the opinions which the Church has approved.

The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis [Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma.
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?
–Reply: In the affirmative.

The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany [From the letter, “Tuas libenter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 21, 1863], Denzinger

684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Can you explain how these large chunks of text are actually relevent to the precise points under discussion? Namely:
(a)* “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”*
This includes an erroneous certain conscience. Do you deny this?
(b) The above is not a mistaken understanding of the autonomy of conscience, just as Cardinal Ratzinger states:
“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…”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

What you call “obfuscation” or “You chose…to omit the morally significant issue” or “such is out of scope for this discussion” seems to be what is tripping you up.

What exactly is the morally significant issue that is “left out”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You will have to explain that sorry?
The doctor puts a very simple proposition to me: “I cannot save both, which one should I save?”

Why must this necessarily involve a direct intention to destroy the foetus (abortion) if I advise him to save my wife?
If the Church teaches that such a choice is an act of abortion and I do not accept that is the case because my conscience tells me this is more likely a matter of self-defence why would my certain decision of conscience be blameworthy even if were erroneous? Its my decision to make, I am not rejecting natural law principles am I. If so what exactly?

 

[Rau]

You will have to explain that sorry?
The doctor puts a very simple proposition to me: “I cannot save both, which one should I save?”

Why must this necessarily involve a direct intention to destroy the foetus (abortion) if I advise him to save my wife?

I’ve at no stage suggested that it must Blue.

You said:
*If I was told **one had to die **and the doctor was asking me to choose I am currently morally certain what I would choose. And that answer may not be in accordance with the principles that mainstream Catholicism seems to teach." *

And I said:
“Or it may be [in accord with Catholicism]”.

And I added:
“Unless you had in mind a murder.”

Mainstream Catholicism takes no position on who should die. Only what one may/may not do.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve at no stage suggested that it must Blue.

You said:
*If I was told **one had to die ***and the doctor was asking me to choose I am currently morally certain what I would choose. And that answer may not be in accordance with the principles that mainstream Catholicism seems to teach."

And I said:
“Or it may be [in accord with Catholicism]”.

And I added:
“Unless you had in mind a murder.”

Mainstream Catholicism takes no position on who should die. Only what one may/may not do.

Well when you explain your more cryptic comments we can discuss further.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What you call “obfuscation” or “You chose…to omit the morally significant issue” or “such is out of scope for this discussion” seems to be what is tripping you up.

What exactly is the morally significant issue that is “left out”?

Your inability to explain these comments suggests your below “explanation” is somewhat incomplete…

 

[Rau]

Your inability to explain these comments suggests your below “explanation” is somewhat incomplete…

How many times must it be explained? Deciding who will die may assume a particular act, but does not specify it. Multiple may be possible. If it’s not specified, we can’t assess it’s morality - because of the lack of moral content. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Vico]

Can you explain how these large chunks of text are actually relevent to the precise points under discussion? Namely:
(a)* “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”*
This includes an erroneous certain conscience. Do you deny this?
(b) The above is not a mistaken understanding of the autonomy of conscience, just as Cardinal Ratzinger states:
“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…”

“Conscience is a judgment of reason” (CCC 1778)", and there is right judgment and erroneous judgment. (CCC 1786) A certain judgment is right judgement not erronesous judgment. Sometimes the “moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment. … It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.” (CCC 1793)

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.

1781 … the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good …

The Catechism does not say that one must follow the erroneous judgment. It does say that when that occurs it is an evil, yet it may not be imputed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Conscience is a judgment of reason” (CCC 1778)", and there is right judgment and erroneous judgment. (CCC 1786) A certain judgment is right judgement not erronesous judgment. Sometimes the “moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment. … It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.” (CCC 1793)

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.

1781 … the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good …

The Catechism does not say that one must follow the erroneous judgment. It does say that when that occurs it is an evil, yet it may not be imputed.

The CCC states the certain judgement of conscience MUST be followed.
Do you deny erroneous judgements can ever be certain?

Yes, an erroneous conscience is of course not objectively and therefore disordered and evil in the sense it is a privation of what should be there. That still does not mean the agent should not follow there and then the clear voice of a certain conscience. You simply assumed that and you are mistaken. One does not commit moral evil in following a certain but disordered conscience. One must do so or commit moral evil for going against it.

The above doesn’t say that certain judgements must be objectively reasonable.
It simply says such judgements come from the faculty of reason. And that faculty may err at times due to imperfect formation. Thus your text talks about a judgement of reason, and not “right reason”…a common enough expression in the CCC that could have been used here if your erroneous reading was on the money. But it isn’t.

And an erroneous certain conscience must be followed, even if contrary to Popes.

 

[PRmerger]

The CCC states the certain judgement of conscience MUST be followed.
Do you deny erroneous judgements can ever be certain?

When your conscience tells you that the right thing to do is in conflict with the Church, you need to re-form your conscience.

That seems pretty cut and dry.

BTW: what ever happened with your report of me? I’ve completely forgotten about it as I had you on ignore, but then I decided to re-consider given one poster’s admiration of you.

Did the report just get ignored?

 

[Vico]

The CCC states the certain judgement of conscience MUST be followed.
Do you deny erroneous judgements can ever be certain?

Ever? A judgement could be certain subjectively (#1, #6) but not certain objectively (#1, #2), due to ignorance.

There are various meanings of certain, adjective (Collins Dictionary):

• 1 fixed, settled, or determined
• 4 not failing; reliable; dependable a certain cure
• 6 without any doubt; assured; sure; positive

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When your conscience tells you that the right thing to do is in conflict with the Church, you need to re-form your conscience.

That seems pretty cut and dry.

BTW: what ever happened with your report of me? I’ve completely forgotten about it as I had you on ignore, but then I decided to re-consider given one poster’s admiration of you.

Did the report just get ignored?

Of course one needs to keep challenging oneself if one finds one is allegedly acting contrary to Church teaching. It’s called a path of discernment or accompanyment, usually with a priest.

And in the meantime one must still not disobey the certain voice of conscience even if some think it disordered/erroneous.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ever? A judgement could be certain subjectively (#1, #6) but not certain objectively (#1, #2), due to ignorance.

There are various meanings of certain, adjective (Collins Dictionary):

• 1 fixed, settled, or determined
• 4 not failing; reliable; dependable a certain cure
• 6 without any doubt; assured; sure; positive

Great, you just defined what a certain conscience is.
Nowhere does it say it has to be objectively correct .

Yes a certain conscience can be erroneous non culpably due to invincible ignorance.
Which is why it must be followed and no moral evil is involved.
Though there is the evil of objective disorder which needs to be corrected by good formation afterwards.
Though in a mature adult it may likely remain invincible as adults tend to be well informed and not pulsilanimus like teenagers. Sometimes they are even actually correct, even when seeing practical matters different from Church authority.

 

[PRmerger]

And in the meantime one must still not disobey the certain voice of conscience even if some think it disordered/erroneous.

Can you given an example of how something would be “in the meantime” where one would disobey the Church?

 

[Vico]

Great, you just defined what a certain conscience is.
Nowhere does it say it has to be objectively correct .

Yes a certain conscience can be erroneous non culpably due to invincible ignorance.
Which is why it must be followed and no moral evil is involved.
Though there is the evil of objective disorder which needs to be corrected by good formation afterwards.
Though in a mature adult it may likely remain invincible as adults tend to be well informed and not pulsilanimus like teenagers. Sometimes they are even actually correct, even when seeing practical matters different from Church authority.

The sense is not given so certain judgment could mean that it has to be objectively correct or not. That is why I gave the other quotes.

 

[Rau]

When your conscience tells you that the right thing to do is in conflict with the Church, you need to re-form your conscience.

That seems pretty cut and dry.

A number of posters reject that out of hand. For me, if one believes (knows) that the act at hand (seemingly sanctioned by conscience) is at odds with definitive doctrine, I struggle to see how one’s conscience can be “certain”. Surely the reality of that doctrine, where the actor himself knows the doctrine applies to the situation at hand, renders a “certain” contrary judgement unattainable.

An erroneous judgement can be certain. For example, if one erroneously believes the doctrine does not cover the situation at hand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ever? A judgement could be certain subjectively (#1, #6) but not certain objectively (#1, #2), due to ignorance.
]

BTW you have here confused “certain” with “true”.
They are very different categories.
Ignorance has nothing directly to do with certainty.
Certainty is about the level of doubt.
Truth is about the level of congruence between the mind and reality.

Two related but very different categories.
A typical mistake wrt the Church’s teaching on conscience.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The sense is not given so certain judgment could mean that it has to be objectively correct or not. That is why I gave the other quotes.

By all means clearly articulate how those quotes deny my statement?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can you given an example of how something would be “in the meantime” where one would disobey the Church?

Just re-read this thread, especially my comments you have been blocking until now