The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Ender]

Please save us the rhetoric, “invincible ignorance” of course.

The discussion is not about whether invincible ignorance eliminates culpability; it is about what constitutes invincible ignorance.

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”?

The church teaches that contraception is an intrinsic evil. That assertion is either true or false. Assume I believe the church is wrong and act accordingly; when I die I will discover the truth of the matter. If the church was wrong I would expect to be held not culpable for rejecting her doctrine, but if I was wrong I would have no such expectation.

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…

No, that is not the situation I am addressing. It seems evident to me now that our difference centers on how one defines the person who knows a particular teaching but rejects it. You refer to him as invincibly ignorant because although he has tried to understand the teaching he is “*unable to accept [it] * as applicable in his circumstances.”

This distorts the meaning of the word “understand”. It is, for example, very easy to understand why the church rejects the possibility of women priests. The reasons were clearly laid out in a very short document JPII wrote specifically addressing the issue. That hasn’t stopped a great many people from rejecting the argument, and while they may claim not to understand why those reasons matter, there is no one who can claim not to understand what the reasons are. Knowing the teaching and rejecting it is very different than not knowing the teaching or misunderstanding how to apply it.

People are not forced under pain of damnation or even venial sin to only follow a certain conscience that conforms to Church Teaching.

Not at all. People are given the truth, choose how they will act on it, and are then held accountable for their choices. You are free to reject the truth, but not to do so with impunity.

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.

Not exactly. I do not believe a Catholic who deliberately acts contrary to church doctrine can be held to be invincibly ignorant. Rejecting the truth is not the same as being ignorant of the truth.

(a) Hearing a teaching is not internally understanding (of course Sergeant majors don’t care because they aren’t teaching but commanding).

“Internally understanding” is a euphemism for rejecting. Refusal to accept something as true is hardly the same as being unable to understand what is being taught.

(b) it is a prudential judgement (not a “teaching”) which, of conflicting teachings, apply in any given concrete instance.

Prudential judgments do not require assent. Rejecting such a judgment does not constitute a rejection of the church.

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.

Changing the label doesn’t change the contents. An act is either an abortion (as the church understands the term) or it isn’t, and how a person chooses to label it has no bearing on the matter.

Moral fault is only due to those who act against their own internally assented understanding of what is right and wrong.

This is inaccurate. Acting against one’s conscience is surely a moral fault, but it is hardly the only way one can sin.

There are positions other than just “rejection” and “acceptance”.

Not when it comes time to act. At that point a choice has to be made, and if there is no gray area in the doctrine these are the only two choices.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Well, I do not know how you would prove that to a Jew who in certain conscience would beg to differ with you. As would many Protestants.

As I commented to Thomas, I would use a different argument with non-Catholics. I have indicated several times I am referring to Catholics who reject church doctrine.

Only if you believe the doctrine in question is unquestionably true or applies in the particular concrete situation being judged.

This goes to the authenticity of the church, and whether she is what she claims to be. If she is not the church instituted by Christ, if the claims she makes about herself are not true (a position one would expect all non-Catholics to take) then there is no reason to give credence to any of her doctrines as she would have no better claim to the truth than anyone else.

As Catholics, however, this is not what we believe. If we accept that she is the church Christ himself formed, and that she can in fact fulfill her mission of “authentically interpreting God’s law in the light of the Gospel”, then what is the rationale for asserting that when you and the church disagree it is the church that is wrong?

Even as a child I came to realise my dad (who was a god) was wrong about some things.

The problem with viewing the church as a “good but fallible” guide (where she claims infallibility) is that it eliminates the possibility that moral truth can be known. If you are free to reject whatever doctrines strike you as inapplicable you must surely acknowledge that everyone has that same right. If you and I take opposite positions on some moral question there is no possibility of saying which of us is objectively correct, and if objective truth cannot be known, as a practical matter it cannot be said to exist.

Following my certain conscience is not a “rejection of a Church doctrine as erroneous”.

So you think your position is right, but the church (who holds the opposite position) is not wrong? You believe that both A and not-A are true? You really haven’t come to grips with the “logic” of your own position. If you and the church hold opposing positions then at least one of those positions is wrong.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Rau:

Did Ender say this? I thought the case of relevance was where the (Catholic) actor himself acknowledged doctrine and conscience are in conflict - yet acts on the basis that his conscience is “certain”?

It’s probably not helpful to jump in on extended converse with someone else you are not familiar with. It makes for the misunderstandings you just demonstrated.

Actually, Rau was right. That is exactly the situation I am addressing.

- what others think is not at issue.

Clearly it is for Ender whom I am engaging here rather than your good self.

Umm, no, what others think is not relevant. I am trying to address what is objectively true, subjective opinions don’t affect the truth.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Obviously if there is a conflict then either:
(A) I am ignorant in some way and therefore in error.

This is the point we’re stuck on. One cannot validly claim to be ignorant of a doctrine in a situation where the doctrine is understood but rejected. That one cannot assent to a doctrine doesn’t mean he is ignorant of what the doctrine is. The very fact that assent is withheld demonstrates that the doctrine is understood, otherwise the question of assent would not even arise.

I’m sure Adam and Eve understood they were not to eat of that particular tree, even if they did not understand why. They were held accountable for choosing to ignore that doctrine, and I suspect a similar fate awaits those who act similarly.

Equally obviously someone who is certain is unable to know they do not know.

We might not know that we’re wrong, but we do know that we have rejected a church doctrine in favor of our own understanding of what constitutes the moral truth of a particular matter. Chomp.

(B) The Church is somehow in error.
While this is not possible re infallible moral principles it is possible in applying them to concrete and particular cases.

It is not that complicated when dealing with intrinsic evils…like contraception. For married couples, that’s about as black and white as an issue gets.

It is also possible that untrained laymen may poorly understand Catholic teachings and it’s concrete formulations thereof. Thus commandments that appear universal may not actually be so.

That there are hard cases, and that we can all make mistakes doesn’t mean that all cases are hard, or that all mistakes are excused.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not at all. People are given the truth, choose how they will act on it, and are then held accountable for their choices.

What nonsense.
If people are unable to confidently internally assent to any “truth” that S.Major Ender barks at them why should they be damned by God if they lead lives that don’t seem to incorporate that “truth”? Hearing and understanding a proposition is quite different from the “formation” of conscience which involves the internal adherence called assent.

Let’s take contracepting as an example…

You are free to reject the truth, but not to do so with impunity.

You have a real hang up with objective reality Ender. As you do with material disobedience.
Is not reflecting all the principles of your old dad in your actions a rejection of your dad or his authority over you?
You never responded to this question?
Did you have a good relationship with your parents?

“Internally understanding” is a euphemism for rejecting. Refusal to accept something as true is hardly the same as being unable to understand what is being taught.

Understanding what is taught by the S.Major does not mean that I internally assent to its truth. If I have reasonable grounds for being unable to personally assent to its universal truth why should I be accused of culpable moral fault for quietly acting otherwise in my private life?
Sure I may be erroneous in that judgement, but it can be made blamelessly.
Let’s take contraception as an example. Inability to assent to a moral universal that somebody else believes and which cannot be proven is hardly always and everywhere culpable . If you believe this you are ripe cannon fodder for totalitarianism regimes and cults … just as Card. Ratzinger stated.

Prudential judgments do not require assent.

Ender have you actually studied Aquinas in this area.
Do you not think you have an obligation to do so when you blow hard on a Catholic Forum?
Of course a prudential judgement requires assent to a universal when coming to a particular conclusion. It’s a quasi syllogistic process.
The point is this…it is also practical reason’s role to decide which assented principle applies.
In the abortion example of that Jewish doctor in the concentration camp it’s fairly clear she thought her procedures were a form of self defence. That was not an unreasonable judgement…though some Catholics would say she was objectively wrong.
Those procedures were more likely abortions because we would judge that the foetus’s were not truly aggressors. She obviously would disagree with great certitude. I see no reason why her poor judgement necessarily involves seriously culpable past formation of her conscience.

Changing the label doesn’t change the contents.

No. But if the contents as seen by the agent are in fact different from what is perceived by S.Major Ender the judgement as to what this behaviour actually is comes into dispute.
Who decides?
Like the validity of a marriage … only God actually knows. Human courts can only make fallible probable judgements. Which means non culpability is possible on numerous grounds.
S.Major Ender can only make probable judgements re particular cases.
Though he may make certain judgements re abstract cases.

So the question as usual is… why does S.Major Ender want to have such impossible certainty re the moral culpability of any particular person in his parish or local newspaper. Is it because you want to name and shame them, punish them in addition to their alleged natural law karma punishments which will one day come anyway, bann them from Communion, excommunicate them from Church membership, purify the sheep fold, put them in sackcloth?
It’s all hypocrisy Ender.
All that can be done is to have set disciplinary rules re Communion access re easily identifiable behaviour. Such rules have nothing to do with identifying moral fault or moral uncleanness. It simply identifies objective behaviour that signals the Church’s grave concerns to the would be communicant. And being such those rules may vary depending on the milieux the Church finds itself in and what will best get the formation results it desires.

That is all there is to it, the rest is between God and the irregular to sort out…with the aid of an accompanying Confessor and the loving forbearance of their community.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, Rau was right. That is exactly the situation I am addressing.
Umm, no, what others think is not relevant. I am trying to address what is objectively true, subjective opinions don’t affect the truth.

Ender

How can judging what is allegedly “objective” … and thus contradicting the agent … not be about what others think? That is exactly the point.
Even what YOU judge to be objective…is yet another subjective judgement by definition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The very fact that assent is withheld demonstrates that the doctrine is understood, otherwise the question of assent would not even arise.

That is not clear at all.
Why could we not equally say that if a doctrine is so true as to be self evident…then inability to assent could just as equally mean there is something lost in translation, in the very words themselves? The Commandments cannot be written well in stone in any human language…you know that.
Understanding has many layered levels.
Can I ask if you are fluent in languages other than English Ender?
Most people understand what I am saying intuitively, but you do not.
I suspect it is a personality idiosynchricity.

I’m sure Adam and Eve understood they were not to eat of that particular tree, even if they did not understand why. They were held accountable for choosing to ignore that doctrine, and I suspect a similar fate awaits those who act similarly.

I have rarely read such anachronist interpolated nonsense from an otherwise intelligent person in all my time on CAF.
When the Pope and the Church is capable of clearly communicating at the level of mystical internal communication God was able to with Adam in paradise I will pick myself up off the floor and take your example here more seriously .

We might not know that we’re wrong, but we do know that we have rejected a church doctrine in favor of our own understanding of what constitutes the moral truth of a particular matter. Chomp.

S. Major stuff, only an insecure authoritarian sees up yours rejection everytime someone quietly acts differently in their private lives. At those times I have never considered myself rejecting God. Do Christian soldiers think they have rejected the 5th in Afghanistan? Some would, some wouldn’t.

That there are hard cases, and that we can all make mistakes doesn’t mean that all cases are hard, or that all mistakes are excused.

So at last you agree that some cases are excused.

 

[Thomas_White]

We cannot know moral truth if by that we mean it can be proven in a scientific sense. We either accept or reject that God has revealed his law - which is objectively true - to us, but if we accept it then we are bound to assent to it.

How do we discover moral truth? We accept that the conscience is imbued with a basic sense of right and wrong, and that it can be formed - or deformed. As Catholics we also accept that what the Church teaches is not what she herself has invented but is in fact what Christ has revealed. The issue of course comes when these two sources of moral truth - the conscience and the Church - conflict.

Agreed, we cannot know moral truth in the (objective) scientific sense. It is also true that we either accept or reject what God has revealed what you see as objective moral truth, but this truth is not, in its source, objective. It is a transcendent truth, and accepting it is a matter of faith. The fundamental importance of faith in spirituality and religion is perhaps the primarily disagreement here. There is a good reason why we speak of the Catholic faith. Ironically, the notion that the conscience is formed/informed solely by learning and environmental factors is the scientific/secular (objective) understanding of the conscience.

What is the source of value judgments? Is the source of the judgment of what is good and what is evil what we learn from speculative reason and Church teaching or is it subjective? Or is it neither and a transcendent truth? If so, how could this truth conflict with itself?

Perhaps what is troubling is the teaching that a human being must follow the certain judgment of his conscience even though the result is some catastrophic evil. I don’t understand this either, actually. If there is something awry, it seems it is here. I suppose it is that the person does not know his acts will be evil, but still–he must commit some egregiously evil act? Maybe I don’t correctly understand this aspect of the teaching on conscience. (See the final comment below).

You know the conscience can err, and how can error ever be in accordance with God’s law? If the conscience is by definition in accordance with God’s law then it can never be in error, and everyone’s conscience would direct them the same way, something that is clearly untrue. It may well be that man’s essential conscience is never in error, but it is demonstrable that whatever conscience directs man’s actions errs quite frequently.

No, the source of God’s law is inscribed on the heart, and this voice cannot err. Error is introduced by human beings, whether by the intellect or in hearing a stifled voice of God’s law. Ipso facto, everyone’s conscience will not necessarily direct them in the same way. However, whether what is demonstrable (i.e., objectively observable behavior) is, with respect to morality, the subjective perception of another person.

Again, that the conscience may err is not in question.

It is relevant to understanding why we are obligated to follow our conscience in all situations. If we act against our conscience and do something we believe is wrong we sin; this is why we must follow our conscience. This does not mean, however, that following our conscience is not also a sin. An act is not justified simply because we believe we are justified in committing it. Take honor killings as an example. The people who commit them believe their acts are proper and justifiable. Do you believe the fact they kill with a clear conscience makes them not culpable for their action?

Of course not, though I cannot know whether or not this is ever done with a clear conscience. This is complex: Sociopathic behavior may in certain circumstances become a cultural phenomenon, be it in the ethics of Wall Street or in a distorted and extreme religious ideology.

Yes, it is a matter of faith in the word of God, but how are we to discover what he has said? Where do we look other than to our conscience and to the Church? And what are we to do when we find a conflict between the two?

Ender

What do we do? Surprise: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

However, that this is the certain judgment of conscience is very important. Can a certain judgment of conscience even conflict with God’s law? That it could is perhaps illogical, for how could a certain judgment in conformity with God’s law conflict with that very law? It depends on whether or not ‘certain’ means ‘correct’. I seem to recall that when Cardinal Ratzinger made his most general comments about the judgment of conscience he left out the word ‘certain’. I doubt this was unintentional.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Agreed, we cannot know moral truth in the (objective) scientific sense. It is also true that we either accept or reject what God has revealed what you see as objective moral truth, but this truth is not, in its source, objective. It is a transcendent truth, and accepting it is a matter of faith. The fundamental importance of faith in spirituality and religion is perhaps the primarily disagreement here. There is a good reason why we speak of the Catholic faith. Ironically, the notion that the conscience is formed/informed solely by learning and environmental factors is the scientific/secular (objective) understanding of the conscience.

What is the source of value judgments? Is the source of the judgment of what is good and what is evil what we learn from speculative reason and Church teaching or is it subjective? Or is it neither and a transcendent truth? If so, how could this truth conflict with itself?

Perhaps what is troubling is the teaching that a human being must follow the certain judgment of his conscience even though the result is some catastrophic evil. I don’t understand this either, actually. If there is something awry, it seems it is here. I suppose it is that the person does not know his acts will be evil, but still–he must commit some egregiously evil act? Maybe I don’t correctly understand this aspect of the teaching on conscience. (See the final comment below).

No, the source of God’s law is inscribed on the heart, and this voice cannot err. Error is introduced by human beings, whether by the intellect or in hearing a stifled voice of God’s law. Ipso facto, everyone’s conscience will not necessarily direct them in the same way. However, whether what is demonstrable (i.e., objectively observable behavior) is, with respect to morality, the subjective perception of another person.

Again, that the conscience may err is not in question.

Of course not, though I cannot know whether or not this is ever done with a clear conscience. This is complex: Sociopathic behavior may in certain circumstances become a cultural phenomenon, be it in the ethics of Wall Street or in a distorted and extreme religious ideology.

What do we do? Surprise: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

However, that this is the certain judgment of conscience is very important. Can a certain judgment of conscience even conflict with God’s law? That it could is perhaps illogical, for how could a certain judgment in conformity with God’s law conflict with that very law? It depends on whether or not ‘certain’ means ‘correct’. I seem to recall that when Cardinal Ratzinger made his most general comments about the judgment of conscience he left out the word ‘certain’. I doubt this was unintentional.

Good stuff by and large but I am surprised you seem to hold that:
(a) moral truths cannot be objectively discerned by reason alone. Philosophy can be just as objective as science.
(b) certain consciences cannot be erroneous in their judgements. This is basic stuff. Certain is about firmness of the judgement, not its objective truth content. Quite different categories.

 

[Ender]

If people are unable to confidently internally assent to any “truth” that S.Major Ender barks at them why should they be damned by God if they lead lives that don’t seem to incorporate that “truth”? Hearing and understanding a proposition is quite different from the “formation” of conscience which involves the internal adherence called assent.

The issue is not whether -]people /-] Catholics disagree with me but whether they disagree with the church. If what the church teaches is objectively true then what you are suggesting is that people may hear the truth, reject it, and not be held accountable for that choice. That seems doubtful.

Understanding what is taught by the S.Major does not mean that I internally assent to its truth. If I have reasonable grounds for being unable to personally assent to its universal truth why should I be accused of culpable moral fault for quietly acting otherwise in my private life?

*Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is. *(BXVI, Spe salvi)
Belief in your innocence does not eliminate your culpability.

Sure I may be erroneous in that judgement, but it can be made blamelessly.

We don’t disagree that there is such a thing as invincible ignorance, or that it makes one not culpable for his errors. We differ on whether rejecting the truth constitutes ignorance of the truth.

Let’s take contraception as an example. Inability to assent to a moral universal that somebody else believes and which cannot be proven is hardly always and everywhere culpable.

Yes, but the “somebody else” in this case is Christ, or rather the church that speaks for him.*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(JPII)

Of course a prudential judgement requires assent to a universal when coming to a particular conclusion.

Prudential judgments, even of popes, do not require our assent.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning …It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)

All that can be done is to have set disciplinary rules re Communion access re easily identifiable behaviour.

This discussion is about the conscience, not who should or should not receive communion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How can judging what is allegedly “objective” … and thus contradicting the agent … not be about what others think? That is exactly the point.
Even what YOU judge to be objective…is yet another subjective judgement by definition.

I don’t judge what is objectively true, nor is it determined by what I or anyone else believes. Either it exists or it doesn’t, and either the church possesses the knowledge of objective moral truths or she doesn’t. If we accept that she is what she claims to be then we accept her teachings as objectively true. If we believe her (significant) teachings are false then it irrational to be a Catholic, or believe that objective truth can be known.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:
Let’s take contraception as an example. Inability to assent to a moral universal that somebody else believes and which cannot be proven is hardly always and everywhere culpable.

 

[Ender]

Agreed, we cannot know moral truth in the (objective) scientific sense. It is also true that we either accept or reject what God has revealed what you see as objective moral truth, but this truth is not, in its source, objective. It is a transcendent truth, and accepting it is a matter of faith.

I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing here. The church uses the term objective moral truth to mean God’s law, which exists as surely as scientific laws. We can either accept the objective truth of those laws, or not. As the church says:2368 …they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

Perhaps what is troubling is the teaching that a human being must follow the certain judgment of his conscience even though the result is some catastrophic evil. I don’t understand this either, actually. If there is something awry, it seems it is here. I suppose it is that the person does not know his acts will be evil, but still–he must commit some egregiously evil act?

It is a given that the person cannot reasonably expect an evil result. If the conscience is that voice leading us to do good and avoid evil it cannot also be the voice tempting us to evil.

Beyond that is the issue of certainty. How is it possible to contemplate an egregiously evil act and be certain it is morally justified? We must always do what we sincerely think is right because to do what we think is wrong is a sin even though doing what we think is right may be a culpable sin as well. Hubris is a poor shield.

No, the source of God’s law is inscribed on the heart, and this voice cannot err. Error is introduced by human beings, whether by the intellect or in hearing a stifled voice of God’s law. Ipso facto, everyone’s conscience will not necessarily direct them in the same way.

It seems you’re referring to two kinds of consciences: the one installed by God and the one that ultimately directs man’s actions. The former is error free, the latter is not. I don’t think this is a helpful distinction given that the conscience at work in judging an act is the latter. This is the one we need to address.

However, whether what is demonstrable (i.e., objectively observable behavior) is, with respect to morality, the subjective perception of another person.

We cannot know someone’s conscience, therefore we cannot judge his culpability for his actions. We can, however, judge the validity of his actions, especially if they involve intrinsic evil. A person who has an abortion, uses contraception, engages in homosexual behavior, etc sins. Those acts are all objectively wrong, and can validly be judged on that basis.

However, that this is the certain judgment of conscience is very important. Can a certain judgment of conscience even conflict with God’s law? That it could is perhaps illogical, for how could a certain judgment in conformity with God’s law conflict with that very law?

I don’t ascribe any special meaning to “certain”. I understand it to mean “I’d bet the farm I’m right.” Actually, it probably means a good bit less since I doubt many people are ever that sure of anything. In practice it probably means no more than “I was certain I locked the door when I left.” So sure, I can easily see a “certain” conscience conflicting with God’s law since I don’t see any reason to believe that a judgment is true simply because a person truly believes it is. Certainty doesn’t confer infallibility.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Where did Christ clearly say that use of the pill always and everywhere is wrong?

CCC 85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

And if he didn’t, how can we prove or objectively know if anyone who claims to accurately speak for him on such a moral universal actually does so accurately?

Either the church is what she claims to be or she isn’t. If she is then what she teaches is in fact the word of God. If she isn’t what she claims she is a fraud. If the best that can be said of her is that she is occasionally right then she is useless as a guide as there is no way to know when she is right and when she is wrong.

Nor have you been able to explain your binary logic that inability to assent = rejection.

When an act is committed it is either in accord with church teaching or it isn’t. At that point the teaching has either been accepted or ignored (rejected, dismissed, discounted…).

Do you also believe a court finding of not guilty= innocent?

No, the opposite of not guilty is guilty. And, yes, these are pretty binary conditions.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
How can judging what is allegedly “objective” … and thus contradicting the agent … not be about what others think? That is exactly the point.
Even what YOU judge to be objective…is yet another subjective judgement by definition.

Come on Ender, you are smarter than this.
Noone touches pure objective truth but only through veils and welding gloves.

Some of us believe it is there but have no way of knowing if our own understanding of it is accurate…let alone our very imperfect articulation of it to others.
So in so far as S.Major Ender’s understanding is imperfect, and his articulation even less perfect, what comes out of your mouth will be distorted in some way compared to the alleged original. And you won’t even know by how much in your great certainty of possessing the truth. And in this way YOU do in fact effectively determine it when barking your moral commands to others, much as you deny it.
This is obvious to all but cult leaders, Hitler and Mussolini.

Abstract articulations of morality are least prone to this distortion, particular judgements of the concrete actions of others, and ourselves, is the most prone to error. Just as Aquinas states.
That is why certain conscience decisions in day to day practical matters seemingly at variance with grave abstract moral principles is often venial or blameless before God.
And I am happy about that, but S.Major Ender is miserable this is possible because somehow it means the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Come on Ender, join the real world. Was your dad an officer in the armed forces or something?

Either it exists or it doesn’t, and either the church possesses the knowledge of objective moral truths or she doesn’t.

What is it with you and these silly binary propositions.
Either my watch is correct or it isn’t makes just as little sense.
Is a watch 1 minute slow useless?
Is your old dad’s advice useless if I once discover it’s imperfect?

You never answer these repeated questions do you?
Is it because you cannot accept the consequences of your “logic” being erroneous?
Why? There is nothing to fear in having only probable knowledge about myself, others, the Church and even God.

If we accept that she is what she claims to be then we accept her teachings as objectively true. If we believe her (significant) teachings are false then it irrational to be a Catholic, or believe that objective truth can be known.
Ender

Objective truth cannot be directly known Ender. How would you prove your version is accurate? Only by rejecting anyone who disagrees with you and privately considering them not truly Catholic? Which can even include the Pope. Which is pretty much what you have done re Pope Francis and AL isn’t it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."
Either the church is what she claims to be or she isn’t.
If she isn’t what she claims she is a fraud.

What silliness.
Is my watch 1 minute slow a fraud and of no service?
Why do you never answer this question?

I have no problem belonging to a Church that may at times make exaggerated claims about itself…even of its own infallibility.

On what objective basis have you somewhere in your past decided that the Church must be right when it, allegedly, says it is always right in matters of faith and morals and accurately tells us all the truth Jesus would say if alive today.

BTW the above quote doesn’t say the Church teaches all truth.
It merely says it has authority to speak on Christ’s behalf.
But even then other Church’s say the same thing,
no doubt Judaism for God also.

If the best that can be said of her is that she is occasionally right then she is useless as a guide as there is no way to know when she is right and when she is wrong.

Why is she useless as a guide if probable certainty is all you get? Have you no moral compass of your own to guide you? What does it matter if you go down the wrong path sometimes? If you keep your wits it’s easy enough to realise this and backtrack. People have been living good moral lives before God outside of the Church and before Jesus came along.
I really don’t understand your fears…unless you are like someone dismissed from the army who panics because there is nobody there to tell him what to do?

No, the opposite of not guilty is guilty. And, yes, these are pretty binary conditions.
Ender

And any good lawyer, or person with common sense, would disagree with you.
Being declared not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t do the evil deed.
Likewise not being able to assent his not the same as willfully rejecting.

BTW You didn’t answer the marriage question?

 

[Ender]

No one touches pure objective truth but only through veils and welding gloves.

The church claims that God’s law - which is objective truth - has been revealed. To the extent we believe that claim is the extent to which we believe we can know what is objectively true.

Abstract articulations of morality are least prone to this distortion, particular judgements of the concrete actions of others, and ourselves, is the most prone to error.

I am not offering abstract articulations of morality; I am basing my arguments on what the church teaches. As for judging the actions of others, so long as the judgment is about the act - which is known - and not about the intention - which is not known - a judgment may properly be made (even if it is not necessarily accurate).

What is it with you and these silly binary propositions. Either my watch is correct or it isn’t makes just as little sense. Is a watch 1 minute slow useless?

If you know your watch is a minute slow you can easily adjust to that fact, but if all you know is that your watch might be right but you have no way of knowing, it really is pretty useless. You can know your watch is a minute slow because there is an objective standard to which you can compare it, but without such a standard you have no way of knowing whether it is exactly right, nearly right, or completely wrong. The same is true of the church. You cannot evaluate the morality of an act in the absence of an objective standard.

You never answer these repeated questions do you?

I consider them irrelevant so I ignore them.

Objective truth cannot be directly known Ender. How would you prove your version is accurate?

Let’s at least be clear about this: I don’t have a standard of truth. I accept that the church is what she claims to be, that she understands God’s law as it was revealed to her, and that that law is objectively true.

Ender

 

[Ender]

On what objective basis have you somewhere in your past decided that the Church must be right when it, allegedly, says it is always right in matters of faith and morals and accurately tells us all the truth Jesus would say if alive today.

I accept what the church claims about herself.*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(Fides et ratio)

BTW the above quote doesn’t say the Church teaches all truth.
It merely says it has authority to speak on Christ’s behalf.

Yes, that is what she claims.*…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. *(Dei verbum)

But even then other Church’s say the same thing, no doubt Judaism for God also.

It can be rational to choose one or another, but it seems less rational to say you believe this one…except where you don’t. What good is a faith that you believe true only when it agrees with you?

People have been living good moral lives before God outside of the Church and before Jesus came along.

That’s true; one does not have to be religious in order to be moral. Having said that, however, how can you say a person is moral if you have no criteria by which to judge morality?

I really don’t understand your fears…unless you are like someone dismissed from the army who panics because there is nobody there to tell him what to do?

Being told by the church what the moral laws are is no different than being told by Newton and Einstein what the physical laws are. We don’t get to choose what is true.

And any good lawyer, or person with common sense, would disagree with you.
Being declared not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t do the evil deed.

I said as much. Please read more attentively.

Likewise not being able to assent is not the same as willfully rejecting.

Do or do not. There are no other options.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I accept what the church claims about herself.

*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *
What “objective standard” did you use to assent with certainty to the alleged truths of same?
And who told you your assent was not objectively erroneous?
And if your act of assent is actually erroneous why are you blameless for your ignorance?

Likewise why should someone who assents to God’s call in his words passed on by the Catholic Church (amongst many such practical choices for doing so) be considered to reject Christ…if he is unable to also assent to specific secondary claims that Church allegedly makes of Christ that he never actually said.
Such secondary claims such as infallibility and derived moral principles not found in the Bible would seem apposite.

Quote:
BTW the above quote doesn’t say the Church teaches all truth.
It merely says it has authority to speak on Christ’s behalf.

Yes, that is what she claims.
In the context you were clearly stating it affirms that the Church teaches absolute truth.
It does not say that. It merely states that the Church believes it was authorised by Christ to speak on his behalf. There is no claim there that it always does so accurately or perfectly.
I believe that is a work in progress only achieved better over time and only if the Holy Spirit is present.

As for the rest of your comments below rational comment is no longer possible Ender.
If you truly hold a watch 1 minute slow is useless as a guide then you have no common sense which alone tells us when our consistent rationality is no longer reasonable.
You have simply disqualified yourself from intelligent rational discussion as you hold to idiosyncratic errors and an excessive passion for binary logic that consistently fails in practical application. Clearly these errors of both logic and of weak common sense are not dislodgable by either reason or practical experience or the observations of others with better formation opportunities than yourself.

That fine, you are entitled to your erroneous invincible ignorance like anyone else and I am confident you are blameless because of this despite the fact the Church has in fact taught you otherwise. It’s sad you are not able to hold the same of those who disagree with you.
Do you think Pope Francis is blameless in what you clearly regard as his erroneous Exhortation and clarifications?

​

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing here. The church uses the term objective moral truth to mean God’s law, which exists as surely as scientific laws. We can either accept the objective truth of those laws, or not. As the church says:

2368 …they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

Yes, God’s law exists “as surely as scientific laws”. But whether we accept or reject “the objective truth” is subjective and a matter of faith and belief whereas scientific laws can be demonstrated and observed. But this is not the end of it. See below.

It is a given that the person cannot reasonably expect an evil result. If the conscience is that voice leading us to do good and avoid evil it cannot also be the voice tempting us to evil.

Of course not. But it is the law inscribed by God on man’s heart that is either heard or not by the conscience, and God’s law cannot err. If there is error, it is man’s error–e.g., from the stifled voice of the law or in the intellect.

Beyond that is the issue of certainty. How is it possible to contemplate an egregiously evil act and be certain it is morally justified? We must always do what we sincerely think is right because to do what we think is wrong is a sin even though doing what we think is right may be a culpable sin as well. Hubris is a poor shield.

It is possible when a human being does not comprehend that the act is evil. Consider what is occurring in the Middle East where fanatics believe they are acting in accordance with what is a distorted view of their religion. Evil in the world is a reality. And so is culpability.

It seems you’re referring to two kinds of consciences: the one installed by God and the one that ultimately directs man’s actions. The former is error free, the latter is not. I don’t think this is a helpful distinction given that the conscience at work in judging an act is the latter. This is the one we need to address.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…” (CCC 1776)

This distinction is real. The law inscribed by God is “deep within” man’s conscience but is not the conscience itself. Whether a person clearly hears the voice of God’s law (i.e., that it is not stifled) or obeys it if it is clearly heard is another matter.

We cannot know someone’s conscience, therefore we cannot judge his culpability for his actions. We can, however, judge the validity of his actions, especially if they involve intrinsic evil. A person who has an abortion, uses contraception, engages in homosexual behavior, etc sins. Those acts are all objectively wrong, and can validly be judged on that basis.

Invoking “intrinsic evil” in a discussion is in a way like resorting to the “nuclear option”. It is an analytic judgment where the predicate is contained in the subject. As such, it must be shown to have to have a logical connection to an outside principle.

I don’t ascribe any special meaning to “certain”. I understand it to mean “I’d bet the farm I’m right.” Actually, it probably means a good bit less since I doubt many people are ever that sure of anything. In practice it probably means no more than “I was certain I locked the door when I left.” So sure, I can easily see a “certain” conscience conflicting with God’s law since I don’t see any reason to believe that a judgment is true simply because a person truly believes it is. Certainty doesn’t confer infallibility.

Ender

It is true that many supposedly objective physical laws were in time proven incorrect as knowledge and understanding advanced. Science typically begins with an hypothesis–an assumption–and a true/false assumption cannot be proven within its own closed system of logic. Thus, there is faith and belief even in science, particularly when the conclusion is merely a statistical probability and principles are then derived from it. So, certainty does not confer infallibility. As an aside, this is why I find laughable Hawking’s argument that God is not necessary for Creation. In the end, this position remains an unproven assumption based on statistical probabilities and thus a belief. Anyway, as we know, God’s law cannot err but the conscience certainly may.