The more one understands about the church the less likely it is one could be certain the church is wrong. If one knows what church doctrine is and rejects it, if it turns out the doctrine is true on what grounds could we claim exemption from our error?
Please save us the rhetoric, “invincible ignorance” of course.
It doesn’t matter if it turns out true or not - and I don’t even know what that might mean in this context. How does “using a contraceptive is morally evil in all circumstances” ever “turn out to be true”?
But if you really mean that the certain but invincibly ignorant person, who has always tried to understand the teaching he is unable to accept as applicable in his circumstances, finally comes to doubt his certainty…then of course he will follow Church teaching if he is of good conscience. That does not mean he was morally at fault previously, though of course he will obviously accept he may have been erroneous.
If a father warns his son not to play with matches, but the boy does it anyway and is burned, has the father punished him or has he simply endured the consequence of his choice?
If this example actually were analogous to the issue being discussed this would indeed be called teaching instead of commanding. But it isn’t.
It is clear from your history of posts on these sorts of matters that you believe persons who do not follow Church teaching should be punished not only by the alleged natural consequences of their errors but also for daring not to conform. Thus your example does not instance your actual attitude here, nor what I stated. I stated that the difference between teaching and commanding is just this, the desire of the authoritarian to have the child punished, especially if he is wise and careful enough not to get burnt when playing with matches.
Nor have I any idea why you would think there is some “absolute truth” (whatever that means) or law of nature re “playing with matches” other than “fire can be dangerous”.
When I was 11 my father told me not to play with gunpowder (and matches) when I tried to make some with my new chemistry set.
When I was 12 I said to myself, I am careful, I know the risks. I made small amounts and learnt how to “play” with gunpowder safely. I did not tell my father because he would object yet I knew I could play with it safely.
By 13 I was making kilograms of it each month and experimenting in all sorts of ways, making sky-rockets, different coloured “fountains” etc etc.
By 14 I was making smoke bombs and noise bombs and blow big holes in the ground bombs.
I was never hurt in any way by any of my experiments…
The same could not be said of various Guy Fawkes incidents with legally bought fireworks we were allowed to play with.
But those “teachers” with an authoritarian personality would want to have seen me punished for somehow “getting away with it.” This is because the “face” of the teacher is not to be mocked by such “disobedience” and it causes scandal. And if punishment cannot be meted out for such impudence then the relationship will be severed. Which is of course what I meant by “damnation”.
But of course its all hypocrisy. This is not how the Church understands the “formation” or teaching of conscience. Your view is a distorted one and is in fact the “commanding” and “conforming” of conscience.
People are not forced under pain of damnation or even venial sin to only follow a certain conscience that conforms to Church Teaching.
Sure, you agree that a certain, erroneous conscience must be followed and that particular act may be non-culpable.
Yet you still maintain that such persons are culpable for getting into that imperfectly formed state if they have outwardly heard the teaching that YOU personally believes applies in their concrete situation.
Most would regard that as a huge arrogance because:
(a) Hearing a teaching is not internally understanding (of course Sergeant majors don’t care because they aren’t teaching but commanding).
(b) it is a prudential judgement (not a “teaching”) which, of conflicting teachings, apply in any given concrete instance. Termination of a foetal life you might call “abortion”, those involved may see self-defence. They may well be in error, but that is hardly a per se “rejection” of a Church teaching.
BlueH:
At last, you admit a situation calls for the application of the correct moral principles when it can be analyzed 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.
There was nothing to admit as this was never the issue. The question is precisely about denying a moral principle as taught by the church in favour of one’s own moral judgment.
You just denied the Church’s teaching on conscience.
Moral fault is only due to those who act against their own internally assented understanding of what is right and wrong. The private’s defence “I was just doing what my major told me was right to do” is not accepted in the West.
You may also need to re-assess why you assume that:
(a) everyone who seems to act differently from some Church Teaching is thereby explicitly “giving the finger” to Church Teaching. There are positions other than just “rejection” and “acceptance”.
(b) assent and consent (and their contraries) are of the same category.
Assent belongs to the intellect, consent belongs to the Will. Moral fault is of the Will, error of the Intellect. Yes they may be in error.
TO BE CONTINUED…
.
.