The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Blue_Horizon]

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… It’s not rocket science.

It likely isnt rocket science once i understand what you are saying in less summary fashion but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Try a fuller explanation.

 

[Rau]

It likely isnt rocket science once i understand what you are saying in less summary fashion but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Try a fuller explanation.

No. IMO, this is wilfull obfuscation on your part blue, and I won’t facilitate it any longer.

 

[Richca]

The fifth dubium the four cardinals presented to Pope Francis regarding AL was this:*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(What appears to me) contrary to this perspective is the one that makes the individual conscience the final arbiter of moral choices, as this appears to do: For a Catholic, if one disagrees with what the Church is teaching, then the obligation is to obey one’s conscience while being an open student of Church teaching. *(pnewton)
I don’t cite this comment to belittle it but because it seems a clear expression of a particular perspective on the conscience. The questions are: first, is it true, and second, if it is, what does it imply? (If someone feels this citation needs adjustment, feel free to do so. I’m just using it to start the debate.)

Both of these positions purport to be based on church teaching, but is that possible? The first one claims that some things “*can never be authorized”, *but the second one asserts that the conscience can authorize whatever it believes is true. Since “never” means without exception, if that statement is true then the belief that the conscience can authorize exceptions must be false. That is, both of these statements cannot be true; one or the other must be incorrect.

One could argue that since the conscience can err, when the conscience “authorizes” something that is always forbidden, it doesn’t actually authorize the act. What it does is exempt the actor from culpability. The act is still wrong, but the person who commits it is not held accountable for his wrong. But doesn’t this imply that we cannot be held accountable for errors our conscience makes? No, we know that isn’t so; we are told explicitly that one may be held accountable for the errors made by an ignorant conscience.*1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
*Given this, the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it seems in error.

Ender

The supreme rule of the human reason or conscience is the divine reason or eternal law which involves the ten commandments which in turn are a more detailed expression of the two great commandments of love of God and love of neighbor. The creature is not above or superior to the creator. There is an infinite distance between the infinite God and the finite creature. Adam and Eve tried the experiment of deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong contrary to God’s command and will, and we know the consequences of such folly.

 

[Vico]

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.

Objectively, as in determined by the Church: so the sense is not fixed, settled, or determined objectively.

Ignorance meaning that what the person determines is certain is not certain as determined by the Church.

A judgement could be subjectively fixed, settled, or determined
or
a judgement could be subjectively without any doubt, assured, sure, or positive.

Certain, adjective (Collins Dictionary):
1 fixed, settled, or determined
4 not failing; reliable; dependable a certain cure
6 without any doubt; assured; sure; positive

 

[Ender]

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.

This is a pretty fine distinction. The conscience is involved in judgment, in determining whether something should be done or should not be done. That said, is there a difference in violating one’s conscience by doing something the conscience forbids, and in not doing something the conscience commands? Are not both examples of “deliberately acting against” one’s conscience, and are we not equally condemned for either?

It isn’t enough to claim that not acting cannot be considered violating one’s conscience. This is a sin of omission where we have an obligation to act and fail to do so. The conscience tells us how we must act, and choosing not to act when the conscience tells us we should condemns us for acting against our conviction.

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.

Yes, that is what I meant. We all accept that there can be valid reasons why a person is not held culpable for his actions. This debate has been largely about whether “I can’t accept that” is such a reason.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Why do you conclude that error of understanding (and hence non acceptance in this particular situation) is rejection of teaching authority?

Most church doctrines are not difficult to understand. “Women may not be priests” is just not all that complicated. One’s rejection of that doctrine can hardly be based on an inability to understand what it is.

Do you also think “teaching” is “commanding” and does not involve personal interior assimilation?

For the church, teaching involves the transmission of truth, which is independent of one’s capacity for recognizing and accepting it.

If a Catholic calls something “an act of abortion” that means it is intrinsically evil no ifs buts or exceptions.

What one “calls” something doesn’t change what it is.

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?

The intentional destruction of a fetus, either as a means or an end, is what the church condemns. Nor is this question unclear for the vast majority of abortions.

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.

Possibly, but I doubt it. You search for ambiguity, not clarity.

There is always room for dispute in applying and matching the correct moral principles to a unique concrete and particular situation surely?

In some cases of course; no one said we would always apply moral principles correctly. Hard cases exist, but the existence of difficult situations does not imply that all, or even many, choices are that complex. So no, there is not *always *room for dispute.

What an absurdly binary way of looking at a complex reality.

Either the church is who she claims to be, or she isn’t. Can you suggest a third alternative?

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?

Comparing the authority of a father to that of the church doesn’t rise to the level of comparing apples to oranges. The authority of the church to pronounce on moral acts flows not from her, but from God’s law which she proclaims. If she does not know the truth, or, like a broken clock is only occasionally right then she has no authority at all and no purpose for existing.

Ender

 

[goout]

You search for ambiguity, not clarity.
Ender

This pretty well summarizes the reams of circular debate on this issue.

The Church’s teaching on conscience and morality and doctrine…
draws us to a unity of faith and living. The conscience is drawn to unity with the Body of Christ, not to an exaltation or excusing of itself.
Certainty is only had in unity with the Church, which is Christ’s body.
The Church does not propose conscience and doctrine as separate things at odds with one another, but rather as a unity to be sought after.
And the Pope is not proposing pastoral practice that leads to disunity, or false unity, as some go on suggesting.
(how many ways can it be said? )

This is such a basic Christian concept…
It’s reflected in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and on from there.

 

[Ender]

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

It is surely true that an erroneous judgment may well be certain, but this says nothing about whether a judgment that involves the rejection of church doctrine can ever be considered certain, and it also says nothing about whether one may be culpable for the sins committed in the name of a certain, but erroneous, conscience. Those are the questions that need resolution.

The insistence that one must follow one’s certain judgment is usually meant to imply that whatever we do with a clear conscience is not held against us, which is clearly untrue.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

This is a pretty fine distinction. The conscience is involved in judgment, in determining whether something should be done or should not be done. That said, is there a difference in violating one’s conscience by doing something the conscience forbids, and in not doing something the conscience commands? Are not both examples of “deliberately acting against” one’s conscience, and are we not equally condemned for either?

How is it that not acting could be construed as deliberately acting against the conscience? The word command has several meanings. If a person enters a command into a computer, the computer performs the act. However, when a command is given to a person, the human mind, or intellect, is a mediating factor where the person decides to act or not act. This also concerns motivation, which may be intrinsic or extrinsic, i.e., the difference between acting as an end in itself or in respect to an external goal. It is an incorrect assumption that the conscience commands. If a person is compelled by the conscience to act, for the good or for the bad, then where would be any culpability for the act if it is bad?

It isn’t enough to claim that not acting cannot be considered violating one’s conscience. This is a sin of omission where we have an obligation to act and fail to do so. The conscience tells us how we must act, and choosing not to act when the conscience tells us we should condemns us for acting against our conviction.

Again, it is an assumption that the conscience "tells us how we must act and compels us to act. It is from this assumption that the remainder of your argument follows, i.e., that a person condemns himself by not acting. This needs explanation. There are indeed sins of omission, but are they the result of not acting on the certain judgment of conscience? Or is the decision to act or not act one of reason alone?

Yes, that is what I meant. We all accept that there can be valid reasons why a person is not held culpable for his actions. This debate has been largely about whether “I can’t accept that” is such a reason.

Ender

The OP states the following: “…the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring Church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it is in error.” The reservation I’ve had concerns the word “ignore”, and I have said that the short answer to the question–as it is worded–is “no”. If that is the extent of it, then you already have my answer to your question. However, I do not know how a person could simply ignore (i.e., not take notice of) Church doctrine and also reject it. Do you see?

When Cardinal Ratzinger said that a person must obey the certain judgment of his conscience “even above” ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching, I do not think he meant that those sources should simply be “ignored”. It seems far more likely he meant that in some unique personal circumstance a person may have an insight (a certain judgment of conscience) in the way Dei Verbum speaks of the understanding of teaching as advancing through the ages. For this reason, I believe some understanding of the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger–beyond the quotation–is necessary for an understanding of what was meant by the quotation. I do not think he meant that acting above ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching was anything other than an extraordinary occurrence–and no commonplace one.

 

[Rau]

…Again, it is anThe OP states the following: “…the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring Church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it is in error.” The reservation I’ve had concerns the word “ignore”, and I have said the short answer to the question–as it is worded–is “no”. If that is the extent of it, then you already have my answer to your question. However, I do not know how a person could simply ignore (i.e., not take notice of) Church doctrine and also reject it. Do you see?

It seems very likely that by “ignore”, the OP means to reject, or to go against in light of the perceived voice of conscience. In such circumstance, it seems highly unlikely (i.e., extrordinarily rare) that the voice of conscience could be deemed “certain”.

When Cardinal Ratzinger said that a person must obey the certain judgment of his conscience “even above” ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching, I do not think he meant that those sources should simply be “ignored”. It seems far more likely he meant that in some unique personal circumstance a person may have an insight (a certain judgment of conscience) in the way Dei Verbum speaks of the understanding of teaching as advancing through the ages. For this reason, I believe some understanding of the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger–beyond the quotation–is necessary for an understanding of what was meant by the quotation. I do not think he meant that acting above ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching was anything other than an extraordinary occurrence–and no commonplace one.

A circumstance I suggest most of us can scarcely imagine.

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems very likely that by “ignore”, the OP means to reject, or to go against in light of the perceived voice of conscience. In such circumstance, it seems highly unlikely (i.e., extrordinarily rare) that the voice of conscience could be deemed “certain”.

Maybe so, but the OP references Church doctrine and the discussion has been in that context. But those of other religious traditions and even those “invincibly ignorant” of Church teaching have a conscience.

A circumstance I suggest most of us can scarcely imagine.

Indeed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. IMO, this is wilfull obfuscation on your part blue, and I won’t facilitate it any longer.

Of course you do.
For to follow the clear logic of my example and analysis would lead you to necessarily conclude that your understanding of how conscience applies in the analysis of concrete examples is weak

In fact your “analysis” injects moral judgement into the very facts even before conscience gets to work.
Little wonder you accuse me of “obfuscating”, “You chose…to omit the morally significant issue” or “such is out of scope for this discussion”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Objectively, as in determined by the Church: so the sense is not fixed, settled, or determined objectively.

I have no idea why you think the terms subjective/objective apply to “a certain conscience” because:
(a) “the certain judgements of his conscience” are clearly always subjective .
That is the whole point of the theology of conscience…its only subjective.
(b) why would a “certain judgement” whose truth is not objective (ie erroneous) for that reason alone not be certain in the mind of the one who made the judgement?

And you still avoid answering the following question with a clear yes or no"

"(a) “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” This includes an erroneous certain conscience. Do you deny this?

 

[Rau]

Maybe so, but the OP references Church doctrine and the discussion has been in that context. But those of other religious traditions and even those “invincibly ignorant” of Church teaching have a conscience.

Apologies, I typed poorly, and meant to type:

It seems very likely that by “ignore”, the OP means to reject, or to go against **church doctrine **in light of the perceived voice of conscience. In such circumstance, it seems highly unlikely (i.e., extrordinarily rare) that the voice of conscience could be deemed “certain”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Most church doctrines are not difficult to understand. “Women may not be priests” is just not all that complicated. One’s rejection of that doctrine can hardly be based on an inability to understand what it is.

Do you realise there is a distinction between the authority of a statement and the authority of the one who made the statement? Hence the inability to accept the first does NOT necessitate rejection of the second. Thus I have always honoured my father even if I have at times chosen not to obey him or accept the truth of what he says.

For the church, teaching involves the transmission of truth, which is independent of one’s capacity for recognizing and accepting it.

No, you are not facing the consequences of your view.
You believe that if one intentionally does not follow an understood Church Teaching when acting then one’s contrary act cannot be justified on “certain but erroneous conscience” grounds - because such error is culpable as one has refused to correctly form one’s conscience.
This essentially means the Church’s Teachings, when speculatively heard and understood in themselves, coerce under pain of actual sin and often damnation. This is essentially the definition of a command. I call “garbage” on that one sorry. That is exactly the totalitarianism cult-like thought that correct Church teaching on conscience saves us from as Cardinal Ratzinger opined in the 1970s.

Quote:
There is always room for dispute in applying and matching the correct moral principles to a unique concrete and particular situation surely?

In some cases of course; no one said we would always apply moral principles correctly.

At last, you admit a situation calls for the application of the correct moral principles when it can be analysed different ways. This is the function of practical reason and conscience judgements are involved here.
It has nothing to do with denying a moral principle (most of the time) or teaching but practically deciding the correct one that applies.
If that judgement is erroneous and I act contrary to what a wiser Catholic would do in my place…why should that be seen as a rejection of the principle I did not see as applying in this particular case?

Thus if I believe that the foetus is endangering the life of a mother and I can only defend the mother’s life by a health procedure that involves its destruction…that may well be an erroneous practical judgement. But it is hardly denying the teaching on abortion, it is upholding the teaching of self defence.

The doctor who performed the concentration camp “abortions” may not have been performing abortions in her own mind at all but defending the life of the mothers.
She was erroneous in her practical judgements…but why must we assume she denied Church teaching…or rejected Church authority (though being a Jew that is irrelevant).
So there clearly is room for sinless, certain and erroneous consciences.
Just as the CCC states.

Either the church is who she claims to be, or she isn’t. Can you suggest a third alternative?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet or haven’t you? Can you suggest a third choice?
Well, yes. Your question, your very frame of reverence is blinkered.

I am not sure what you think the Church claims to be?
And who actually makes this claim?
And how would you personally know this claim is not just “certain” but also objectively true?

The authority of the church to pronounce on moral acts flows not from her, but from God’s law which she proclaims.

Most religions pronounce on morality, that’s why we join them or stay with them.
Nothing special or objectively provable there.

If she does not know the truth, or, like a broken clock is only occasionally right then she has no authority at all and no purpose for existing.

Is a clock that is 2 minutes slow either “broken” or useless?
I don’t think so, and yes I have no problem with the Catholic Church being like this…just as most sane religions also believe about themselves including Judaism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is surely true that an erroneous judgment may well be certain,

At least we can move beyond Vico’s unusual stance then.

but this says nothing about whether a judgment that involves the rejection of church doctrine …

Lots of issues here:
(a) such judgements do NOT usually involve rejecting the major premise (the universal moral principle) of a practical moral judgement in concrete circumstances (Aquinas says a quasi syllogistic form of reasoning takes place whenever we make personal moral choices).
Thus the erroneous judgement is in the minor premise, application of the principle to the particular. Thus I may know that all adultery is wrong, but I may erroneously judge that I am not engaging in adultery (call me Oedipus).
(b) Being unable to accept that all contraception is wrong is not necessarily a rejection of the Church’s authority to teach.

can ever be considered certain.

How do you come to the clear conclusion that someone’s private and quiet use of contraceptives involves a clear rejection of the Church’s teaching on the immorality of contraceptive acts?

and it also says nothing about whether one may be culpable for the sins committed in the name of a certain, but erroneous, conscience.

The insistence that “one must follow one’s certain judgment” is usually meant to imply that whatever we do with a clear conscience is not held against us, which is clearly untrue.

And yet the CCC says just this.
Therefore some cases of certain judgement (the invincibly ignorant ones) are not held against us by God.

I just love the way you turn obvious glasses half full statements into “proof” of empty glasses … “usually” or “in practice”. You do this all the time and the empty rhetoric is wearisome.

 

[Rau]

It is surely true that an erroneous judgment may well be certain…

For example, when one misunderstands doctrine.

…but this says nothing about whether a judgment that involves the rejection of church doctrine …believed to apply to the case in hand…] can ever be considered certain…

The fact that one observes disagreement between conscience and church doctrine ought of itself to create doubt - leading almost always to an uncertain conscience. Thomas W (post #293) seems to be in line with that generally too - though he notes that in rare circumstances, it might be possible to be certain.

and it also says nothing about whether one may be culpable for the sins committed in the name of a certain, but erroneous, conscience.

If certain (and I include in this case “aware of no conflict with church doctrine”) - I cannot fathom how one could be culpable.

 

[Ender]

How is it that not acting could be construed as deliberately acting against the conscience?

I think this is too narrow a view of what constitutes a moral act.*Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. *(Catholic Encyclopedia)
If a moral act was determined solely by the physicality of our actions there could be no such things as an act of omission, nor would we ask forgiveness for “what I have done and what I have failed to do.” The fault lies in the will which controls the act.The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God’s law and the dictates of right reason.
If you’re lounging around a pool and watch a toddler fall in and drown without ever moving, the fact that you never moved hardly means you have not sinned. The will chose to allow his death. It was a morally bad act.

Again, it is an assumption that the conscience "tells us how we must act and compels us to act. It is from this assumption that the remainder of your argument follows, i.e., that a person condemns himself by not acting. This needs explanation. There are indeed sins of omission, but are they the result of not acting on the certain judgment of conscience? Or is the decision to act or not act one of reason alone?

The conscience judges the morality of an act; of what one should do in a particular situation. The will chooses how one will act. If the act that comes from the will is not the act the conscience has judged moral, one has condemned himself by acting against his conscience.

The OP states the following: “…the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring Church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it is in error.” The reservation I’ve had concerns the word “ignore”, and I have said that the short answer to the question–as it is worded–is “no”. If that is the extent of it, then you already have my answer to your question. However, I do not know how a person could simply ignore (i.e., not take notice of) Church doctrine and also reject it. Do you see?

Being unaware of church doctrine is very different than knowing what the doctrine is and rejecting it. Can a Catholic be morally justified in choosing to act according to his own personal sense of right and wrong if it is contrary to what he knows the church teaches?

When Cardinal Ratzinger said that a person must obey the certain judgment of his conscience “even above” ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching, I do not think he meant that those sources should simply be “ignored”. It seems far more likely he meant that in some unique personal circumstance a person may have an insight (a certain judgment of conscience) in the way Dei Verbum speaks of the understanding of teaching as advancing through the ages.

Does a claim of personal “insight” overrule church doctrine and allow us to disobey it with impunity?

I do not think [Ratzinger] meant that acting above ecclesiastical authority and official Church teaching was anything other than an extraordinary occurrence–and no commonplace one.

If what the church teaches is true then how can there be exceptions where we are justified in rejecting the truth?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Apologies, I typed poorly, and meant to type:

It seems very likely that by “ignore”, the OP means to reject, or to go against **church doctrine **in light of the perceived voice of conscience. In such circumstance, it seems highly unlikely (i.e., extrordinarily rare) that the voice of conscience could be deemed “certain”.

Yes, but to say a human being’s certain judgment of conscience must always conform to Church teaching is circular logic that negates the very purpose of the conscience. What if an “extraordinarily rare” circumstance that represents an advancement of teaching is revealed to a pope who then shares this revelation in a papal exhortation? It is this type of extraordinary circumstance I had in mind.

 

[goout]

Yes, but to say a human being’s certain judgment of conscience must always conform to Church teaching is circular logic that negates the very purpose of the conscience.

This is so wildly wrong.
The purpose of conscience to draw the person to unity with the Body of Christ, the Church. Conscience allows the voice of God to speak clearly in the person, always drawing toward unity with the Church.
Please read the catechism and stop overthinking this. Simplicity is a virtue.

What if an “extraordinarily rare” circumstance that represents an advancement of teaching is revealed to a pope who then shares this revelation in a papal exhortation? It is this type of extraordinary circumstance I had in mind.

What if I had angel’s wings?