E
East_and_West
Guest
Exactly. A conscience that goes against Church teaching is malformed and disordered.
- Status
T
TMC
Guest
This a beautiful thought and apt to this discussion. I would note that the parable ends with the Father’s loving forgiveness and acceptance of both.
We are left hoping and believing that the older will reform his heart by discarding his pride, and that the younger will reform his heart by growing out of his selfishness. But the Father accepts and welcomes both before that happens. I pray for the same forgiveness, acceptance and love, while trying to reform my own heart.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Can’t remember whether this has been brought up before…been a long time since i looked at this thread 
When we encounter a scrupulous person around here, a common piece of advice is to find one confessor and OBEY HIM, regardless of what “something” inside us is saying. The idea behind this is that our pastors have a duty of care to us to guide us, and we have a duty to follow them, and any wrong that we commit under their direction is imputed to them (that last clause there could use some rephrasing, i think).
When we encounter a scrupulous person around here, a common piece of advice is to find one confessor and OBEY HIM, regardless of what “something” inside us is saying. The idea behind this is that our pastors have a duty of care to us to guide us, and we have a duty to follow them, and any wrong that we commit under their direction is imputed to them (that last clause there could use some rephrasing, i think).
J
jmcrae
Guest
I think the idea of it is that, if you trustingly obey lawful authority, they are responsible for your actions, just like a soldier under command. But if you go your own way, then you alone are responsible - so you only go it alone when you are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of doubt, that you are right, and that lawful authority doesn’t know what it is talking about.Can’t remember whether this has been brought up before…been a long time since i looked at this thread
When we encounter a scrupulous person around here, a common piece of advice is to find one confessor and OBEY HIM, regardless of what “something” inside us is saying. The idea behind this is that our pastors have a duty of care to us to guide us, and we have a duty to follow them, and any wrong that we commit under their direction is imputed to them (that last clause there could use some rephrasing, i think).
D
dacoobob
Guest
But even soldiers under command have a duty to disobey immoral orders (as judged by their conscience).
J
jmcrae
Guest
This would be a situation where the individual is perfectly certain that he is right, and the person is authority is wrong - and that it is therefore safe to disobey.
It’s not all that complicated, really.
P
Peregrino
Guest
You are right, its not. We are responsible for our actions and the things we assent to. Though the church holds that we can never sin by our obedience, I don’t believe that this is a good excuse for doing wrong, especially if my conscience is warning me against the action in question.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes. The tricky part is when personal opinion gets mistaken for “conscience.” This is when you get people using birth control (the world is overpopulated), having abortions (I need to finish my schooling), embezzling money (they didn’t pay me my bonus money), stealing (borrowing it for an indefinite period of time), committing various acts of vandalism (they don’t listen to me; it’s the only way to get my message across), and even causing actual or emotional harm to others (they need to learn not to contradict me), because they judge it to be “the right thing to do” based on selfish motives, which they mistake for “conscience.”
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
As per these words of Pope Pius XII:
“Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.”
P
Pug
Guest
I think there are many things that get mistaken for conscience. One of the ways I used to mistake things was to think various rules I had been told as a youth must be obeyed. Like “never make a scene”. I knew scenes were bad. But now I better understand that there are times that to do the right thing, we must do things that seem like a “scene”. I had a whole list of things that worked to restrict my behavior that I didn’t really distinguish from my conscience…
Never nark.
Never trespass.
Don’t waste anything (waste for me often just included using it).
You must write a thank you card.
Obey when told to do something directly by someone.
Clean your plate.
You are not special, so you must always compromise with people, even if you really don’t want to (“really don’t want to” for me was often my actual conscience).
It is an unnecessary luxury to have clothing that fits.
If you must sin or bend a rule to help someone in serious trouble, you must do so, even if you really, really don’t want to.
You must get a life and not spend “too much” time with your spouse.
Usually do what people mean, not what they actually say.
You can’t say no without a “reason”. (reason was defined in a funky way)
Stuff like this.
When your head is filled with nonsense, it is really hard to think straight.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Your perspective is that any conscience that disagrees with the church is malformed or whatever slur you would like to use. The problem is that assenting to the church in instances such as the crusades (Deus Vult!!! God wills it!-like we can imagine Jesus shouting that one…) or the inquisition would have clearly lead to evil actions. You calmly assert that we can proceed with a clean slate by our submission to “lawful” authority (like burning someone at the stake demonstrates the church’s lawful authority…jeez). There is something clearly wrong with this perspective of submission. The church has proven that it errs in the application of its “lawful” authority. Our conscience clearly must stand informed by but ultimately independent of the church.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
My answer here is probably rediculously simplistic, but I’ll put it out there anyway. I didn’t become a Catholic until I was 48 years old, and had struggles with almost every major dogmatic principle of the RCC for my whole life. Once I began the road to conversion, and got past the basics of the Trinity, the roll of Christ in the Trinity, the roll of the Church in Christ’s Kingdom etc. etc., then frankly most of my doubts and struggles started to go away just from reason and study etc… It sounds like you’ve already gotten that far. Then I prayed a great deal for God to open up my mind to the rest of the issues that I had as stumbling blocks. (I can’t stress the importance of prayer enough). It finally came down to trust/faith. Everytime I asked the Holy Spirit to help me reason through a concept, I would finally arrive at what resignated as the truth. If I was honest with myself, then it generally coincided with the Church teachings anyway.
I had to have faith that Jesus IS God. If he is God, then he told the truth about instituting His Church and how important that Church was in the grand scheme of things. That He instituted it, left the Holy Sprit with it, and that in spite of human misbehavior, and free will, it has been faithfully passed on, as promised for more than 2000 years. When I looked at the big picture. That the Lord’s very own Apostles, and the Church fathers, and saints down through the centuries have eagerly laid down their lives for these truths, then I could trust in God for the few issues that were left, that I couldn’t completely embrace, because His Church embraced it. I’m not completely sure why our “conscience” sometimes tries to trump over the truth. I suspect it’s from the exagerated sense of self-importance that we are unfortunately raised with, and the philosophy of relativism that runs rampant in the modern world. It’s a virulent and poisonous philosophy that has caused much more harm than good in the world.
Start with the premise that Jesus is Lord. The only begotten son of God. He told the truth always. All of the Church’s teachings are derived from the full faith and loyalty to our Lord and Saviour without exception. Any areas that were grey as man progressed were dealt with through magesterium and councils resulting in dogmatic declarative statements of truth. No dogma was ever arrived at lightly. They are, after all, declarative statements which must be deduced from the Word of God.
Study the Word of God. Study Church history. Study the Church Fathers. Study Aquinas and other theologians. I think you’ll find that the more you look into a particular concept, the more you’ll agree with the Church’s stance. The more your “conscience” will be assuaged by the truth. Above all…
Trust and believe in the Lord. Even when it hurts.
Ask God to relieve you of the heartache and misery that is relativism. It has been a crippling and unfortunate philosophy which will take a long time to pull out of.
The Church is unafraid of scrutiny. Study away, but do please try to see how one thing links to the next. Follow each link until you arrive at teaching from the Lord. It all makes sense, if you try to just take in a little bit at a time, and then trace each concept back to it’s origin in the word of God.
You must have unflinching courage, to hear answers, even when they’re hard, and hurt. Many of them are that way. It’s because of our relativist upbringing and our egos.
Faith…deep, abiding, trusting and innocent faith.
Christ be with you,
Steven
J
jmcrae
Guest
What is your opinion of the idea of putting people in jail for robbery? After all, no one is actually hurt by their crimes, and shouldn’t everyone be sharing, anyway?
If Communism had taken hold in the way that Marx thought it would, we today would be perplexed at the idea of putting people in jail for robbery - after all, everything belongs to everyone; if they felt a need to have something, no one had the right to stop them from taking it.
We have different values than the people who lived in the Middle Ages. To them, heresy was seriously harmful, just as we consider robbery to be, in our society.
We can look at it and say, “Heresy doesn’t hurt anyone - why should people have been punished for it?” But they didn’t see it that way. Harming someone’s soul with bad spiritual ideas, from their point of view, was exactly the same thing as emptying out their savings account and stealing all their jewellery.
L
LSK
Guest
Part of your argument is based on historical judgements made from the modern perspective.
Today, for instance, we can make a statement that ‘The Church burned people at the stake’ because from our modern perspective we do not see a seperation of secular government and Church laws in the Middle Ages. The truth, however, is that there WAS a seperation - the Church did not burn people at the stake.
The same applies to The Crusades. The historical reality is that there is a very good argument for the Church to have called for the liberation of the Holy Land and the protection of the Catholic Church in the middle east at the time. However, today we look at that time period through the window of our modern sensibility and say “OH HOW HORRIBLE!”. The fact is Jesus knew exactly when force was necessary - He chased and threw people out of the temple for defiling His Father’s House.
A well-formed conscience is in harmony with Church Teaching. When someone has a well-formed conscience, they may need to discern whether or not the person interpreting the Church teaching is correct. That may take prayer and study and the courage to ask a lot of questions. A priest who tells a woman that she is not committing a sin by using artificial birth control because ‘she is going with her own conscience’ may be a priest, but he is not giving guidance in accordance with Church Teaching. If she relies solely upon his guidance, and then later discovers that he has not taught her correctly, it was not the Church who failed but the man charged with disseminating Her Teachings.
Personally, I know that when I heard something that sounded ‘hinky’ I went and found out if what I was hearing was truth according to the speaker or The Truth. Sometimes I was surprised - and then it was up to me to practice the spiritual discipline of acceptance and obedience. Many times I discovered that either I had been given wrong information or, perhaps, I had not heard the teacher correctly - either way I have NEVER been chastized for asking a question in regards to Church teachings.
F
fix
Guest
P
Peregrino
Guest
First, I can’t believe that you are justifying the actions of the church in these instances, we are apparently separated by a such a moral gulf on this one that I won’t waste my time with you on this issue-we will never see eye to eye here;
Second, you are basically saying that an “informed” or “properly formed” conscience (pick your jargon) for someone in the middle ages or reformation period can be different than that of a modern era person. Given that an individual’s conscience (to be right) must agree with the church, how is it that the “unchanging” church’s moral perspective can be so morally variable? It is not like we found the gospels after the reformation period and discovered that Jesus advocated pacifism and non-violence.
LSK, my critique has nothing to do with the intersection of church and state-I am well aware of the historical realities. My critique stems from looking at the variability in the moral actions/recommendations of the church. Why is the church not in support of roasting heretics today?
All in all, I believe that the church remains a large and important landmark on the moral landscape that should not be ignored. I don’t agree that the individual should give blanket assent and abdicate their conscience without struggling through their moral decisions. The consequences of those who do so and become blind followers seems to always be negative.
C
catharina
Guest
Living in the here and now, and grateful that I am, knowing Church History and problems of the past, I can’t imagine “feeling” or believing that my conscience could be better informed than that of the Vatican II Popes. I know little of John Paul I, but the others, JXXIII and Paul VI and JP II and Benedict XVI lived the years of WWII in nations that were battlefields. That they did so - within the Church - tells me that their daily lives and prayer lives were far more in touch with greater realities than mine could ever be.
As far as facing God after death - and having the freedom to argue one’s “case,” it seems unlikely. Such arguments in defense of self and in condemnation of Almighty God are to be resolved before death - with God as the Supreme One and “man” as the “less than” God.
As far as facing God after death - and having the freedom to argue one’s “case,” it seems unlikely. Such arguments in defense of self and in condemnation of Almighty God are to be resolved before death - with God as the Supreme One and “man” as the “less than” God.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It was never the Church that burned anyone at the stake. The Church has never been opposed to the lawful use of the death penalty; nothing has changed in that regard.
Not at all. But the values of society at large have changed. Heresy is “no big deal” to most people today, so governments don’t attempt to control it through the force of law.
The Church still considers heresy to be harmful.
Jesus never did any such thing. Jesus Himself threw the money changers out of the Temple in a violent manner. Self defense and the defense of society have always been good reasons to restrain those who would harm us, whether spiritually, financially, morally, emotionally, or physically. If they can’t be restrained by ordinary means, then the death penalty is permitted. That’s in the Catechism.
Then you know that it has never been the Church that created or enforced civil law.
The Church is still just as much opposed to heresy as it has always been. The civil authorities no longer punish heresy because it no longer suits them to do so.
Nobody is asking Catholics to be “blind followers.” We are asked to become fully informed about the issues, and to listen to the teachings of the Church. The teachings of the Church cannot be contained in a list of "do"s and "do not"s - the explanations are there. Everything is reasonable.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Oh my, you live in such a fantasy land of legalisms. History is clear, the facts are well established, the existence and actions of the Inquistion are accepted as fact. How you can write the things you do amazes me. I really need to avoid the CA forums; your “apologetics” actually decreases my respect for the Catholic Faith geometrically because I know that its is the slippery legal framework used by the Church that allows you to justify such blantantly wrong things and actually come across as smug doing so.
Good luck with your legalisms when it counts…I will continue to consult both my conscience and the church for my ethical decisions.
E
estesbob
Guest
And Ill bet your "conscience " wins every time. It apeears you have as poor an understanding of nthe Crusades and the inquisition as you do the teachings on primacy of conscience.\
Generally when you hear a Catholic talking about rejecting the Church becuase it is against their conscience it has nothing to do with the alleged wrongs of the past. It has everything to do with the present. it is an easy excuse to vote for pro-abotion canidates or practice contraception and or rejcet teachings on Homosexuality. Much easier to wave the Crusades about like to sword of Excalibur than realy adress these issues.
BTW-you forgot to bring up Gallelio-or were you saving this Church "outrage for a later post?
- Status