What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

[Pug]

Yes, that’s what I’m getting at. I trust my direct experience with deity more than I will ever trust a book, a priest, or a tradition.

By trusting experience within, I have come to rely upon things outside of myself at times. It was an inner thing that has lead to me trusting certain outer things.

In my religion there is only one rule: don’t cause harm. It’s not so much about God speaking to you as it your understanding of the universe. We understand that all things - including God - are one. (This is a scientific truth as well as a spiritual one.) Thus we seek not to harm, since harming others really harms us all.

Perhaps by understanding the universe you are talking about a concept that I would be more inclined to describe by saying that we must understand the truth, about the world, about man and what man is (the word “man” is a collective, species kind of word for me), about God, etc. Morality should respect what man is, what the world is, etc. When we sin, we are doing some type of a contrary thing (or maybe I mean irrational too).

Sometimes it’s hard to tell what will be harmful, and since it is impossible to live without ever harming another living thing, we may need guidance from Spirit to help make the best choices. I personally experience that guidance via my intuition or conscience, which are basically the same thing.

I agree that it can be very hard to tell. I agree that within us, there is, oh, like a stamp or writing of God to be seen or something, it helps us to do right. A Catholic will talk about being guided by the Holy Spirit, but I suspect we would mean different things by this concept.

I do not accept the ideas of “absolute good” and “absolute evil.” Good and evil are very subjective. It goes back to the old question: would you steal medication if that were the only way to save your dying baby? If I go by a book, in your case the Bible, the answer would be no, since stealing is a sin. If I go by my intuition, which to me is the direct experience of deity, the answer is an obvious yes.

In my case the answer might be to take the medicine. Other circumstances would affect my choice. If, for instance, the medicine was intended for another baby, I would not take the medicine in preference to my child. A Catholic might well take (steal) food to feed their family, if starving. This is not considered to be theft. Since you did not know this, I will document it with a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to help you see that this belief I am expressing is fairly common amongst Catholics.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

I think it is certainly possible for a deity to speak through a person. However, this has happened to many people, not just the prophets of the Bible. While I don’t necessarily doubt any of them, how are we to decide whom to believe?

That’s a great question! Don’t worry, though. I’ll not besiege you with my answer. It is an important question for Catholics, though, so my ears perked up.

 

[hainleys]

Adam and Eve followed their consciences. Look where that got us!

 

[ribozyme]

He never did a day’s work in his life, either - his actual lifestyle wasn’t really my point; I was just referring to his theory of economics.

Class repeat after me:

The fundamental rule of human nature:

Communism will always fail in the species Homo sapiens…

Communism will always fail in the species Homo sapiens…

Why? Because humans are naturally hierarchical species and we have an innate sense of property and fairness. (Probably evolved to combat the “free-rider problem” as our ancestors have to survive in an environment with finite resources.) Unfortunately, the notion of an egalitarian society will never work for the species Homo sapiens.

Adam and Eve followed their consciences. Look where that got us!

Nani!!?? What do you mean by Adam and Eve? Our behaviors took millions of years to evolve. Our state wasn’t produce from a simple little action from eating fruit from a hypothetical tree.

 

[dacoobob]

Adam and Eve followed their consciences. Look where that got us!

Bam. That hits the nail right on the head.

 

[TMC]

Adam and Eve followed their consciences. Look where that got us!

No, the whole point is that they did not follow their consciences.

Following your conscience is NOT “do what you want.” It’s “do what you believe is right.” They did something that was wrong and they knew it was wrong. That’s why they hid from God. If God would have come done and they would have truthfully said that they did not understand that eating the fruit was wrong, or that they had somehow become convinced that that rule no longer applied or something, that would have been following their conscience, and maybe the story would have ended differently.

 

[fix]

Your reference is incomplete. The operative elements are found in CCC under Erroneous Judgement, 1790 to 1794. You have listed the “one liner” contained within the “In Brief” section at the end [1800] and a snip from The Judgment of Conscience [1782].

1790 does in fact state:
A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

HOWEVER, 1791 further states:
[sign]This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when man “takes little trouble to find out what is true or good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. [/sign]

1792 lists “…enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teachings…” as things which can be at the source of errors of judgment.

Something you also left out of your citations is 1787
[sign]Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. **But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. **[/sign]

I will use a ludicrous example to make the point. I know that the Church teaches that taking an innocent life (i.e. killing someone) is wrong. But, my conscience is telling me that it is OK to kill a specific person because they really annoy me. I’ve tried to inform my conscience, prayed on it, and I still really want to kill this annoying person. Is it OK to follow my conscience?

I would hope that we all see that it isn’t OK to simply follow one’s conscience, unless you believe in situational ethics. There is still eternal punishment.

God bless us all.

Right. Obeying an erroneous conscience is objectively wrong and does not always reduce personal culpability.

 

[Tim_James]

Hi everyone…

It’s a simple question really…what if:

You cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

I guess a lot of people struggle to unify their own thoughts with the church’s… what do you do if you cannot do this?

Repent and obey anyways.

 

[D317]

In my religion there is only one rule: don’t cause harm. It’s not so much about God speaking to you as it your understanding of the universe. We understand that all things - including God - are one. (This is a scientific truth as well as a spiritual one.) Thus we seek not to harm, since harming others really harms us all.

…

I do not accept the ideas of “absolute good” and “absolute evil.” Good and evil are very subjective. It goes back to the old question: would you steal medication if that were the only way to save your dying baby? If I go by a book, in your case the Bible, the answer would be no, since stealing is a sin. If I go by my intuition, which to me is the direct experience of deity, the answer is an obvious yes.

“BlessedBe”, Don’t you find it odd that your “one rule” is not to do harm rather that to do good? Sounds good to the “lets hold hands & sing Kumbaya” crowd, but it is really 180-out with the natural moral law. Doing no harm is NOT the same thing as doing good. Therefore, your ‘religion’ is based on the one rule of not doing good.

Your “dying baby” straw man proves the fallacy of your belief. When you steal the medicine, isn’t that hurting someone (the victim from whom you have stolen)? What if you had to physically injure someone in order to steal the medicine and save that dying baby? It is only a broken arm & some bruises on the head, but you save the baby. Is that OK or not, since the greater good is saving the baby? It would seem that based on your belief, you would just let the baby die. But isn’t that doing harm? Doing nothing can be doing harm.********** Quite a quagmire you are in. ****

Perhaps this is because you do not accept the facts of Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. Your argument is simply an “ends justify the means” position, which opens the door for all kinds of deviant behavior. Don’t you see that by denying Absolute Good and Absolute Evil you negate your “one rule” of do no harm? Without an Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, how do you know if you are doing harm? It depends on the situation, right? Going back to the dying baby, is it right to do harm [steal or kill] to do a good [save the baby]? If you won’t kill to save the baby, you do harm by letting the baby die.

I’m not sure if your beliefs are Situational Ethics or Fundamental Opinion Theory; but they certainly don’t make sense either spiritually or morally (nor even in the big realm of the universe).

Fortunately, there is truth, mercy, and hope; his name is Jesus Christ. He is the son of the Creator of the universe (which you value) and He redeemed us for our sins. He is the one Good who has written the natural moral law on our hearts & soul. He will help you. I encourage you to put away your false gods, beliefs, and misconceptions and listen to him.

I pray that you will become “Blessed Be” in the near future. You have asked for help and I pray that I have given you the impetus to seek Christ.

 

[AndyF]

Abira:

Lets outline some basic Church teachings first before we go further. Secondly we are obligated to carry out Church rules regardless.

1/ Faith matures. Which means that some were blessed almost immediately with enlightenment, and some were blessed on their deathbed, and some will obtain it ploddingly through life as they are warranted.

2/ Understanding the mysterious as well has the comprehendable calls for additional grace.

3/ The Church teaches that it’s children can be given time to absorb and reflect. “If a thing seems unlikely then a person can suspend his judgement until they secure evidence of it’s truth or falsity, and then decide accordingly.” Late Card F.J. Sheen.

4/ Included with those who are subject of your post are those who also claim to have an informed conscience and receive daily proof that that isn’t the case through their breaking of God’s commandments.

So it would be wise to stay clear of those who have set a timetable in their mind’s eye as to when anyone should have made their final decision.

AndyF

 

[nkbeth]

Suppose Jesus would appear before you and tell you that your conscience was wrong.

Wouldn’t your conscience (and your mind) then be CHANGED? I think you would accept His word over your imperfect understanding.

An informed conscience must take teaching authority into account too. We can’t necessarily understand everything we are commanded to do. Abraham didn’t understand God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. But Abraham didn’t act against His conscience! His conscience told him that he must obey God!

You should remember that Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. I hope that your conscience will then change to desire what the Church (and so Christ) commands, even if your mind does not yet understand. (It surely can’t be as hard as what God told Abraham).

If you don’t believe this about the Catholic Church, then I think you have a bigger problem than your original issue.

It is always good to understand what we are commanded if we can. But in the mean time we should obey; our conscience should tell us this.

But … we all get entangled in our own ignorance and sin, and in the confusion of the world around us. But wherever we end up, I think we really MUST always obey our conscience in the end (after all prayer, and considerations, including authority). God doesn’t want us to do what we think is wrong! We can only act according to what we know (including the authority of God to teach what we don’t know). God knows whether we’re innocently confused, or whether our conscience was corrupted because we failed to follow it in the past (by so many sins: lack of prayer, humility, study, following God not our personal interests etc).
Our conscience and mind (informed first by prayer and grace) should help us know how to be informed on another matter.

If we can wait to act when we are undecided about such matters, then I think we should wait.

As I recall, St. Thomas Aquinas said that acting according to a conscience that is in error is a terrible dilemma. No matter what we do, we do wrong. It is always wrong to act against our conscience. But it is also (objectively) wrong to do something that is (objectively) wrong.

God judges according to what He reads in our hearts (not just what we objectively do). But if you think that it is Christ’s Church that is commanding you, you need to pray over and over before you’re conscience is set on your own understanding.

Another thought (I’m not sure if it applies)

If the Church commands X but we think X is wrong, then this might be a case of a question of conscience.

But what if the Church says X is always wrong, but we think X is sometimes PERMISSIBLE? (I.e. we think we CAN do X but don’t think we MUST do X).

In this case I think there shouldn’t be any issue of conscience at all for a Catholic. When given the choice between “do what is right & obey the Church” and "do what think is also right & disobey the Church>, the choice should be “obey the Church”

I’m thinking of contraception; few people think you MUST use it, but many think it is OK to use it. I thinkbey the Church and accept all that that comes (as a wonderful gift from God).

 

[Tim_James]

Sometimes I pray for the Holy Spirit to convict me…

 

[Pug]

I’m thinking of contraception; few people think you MUST use it, but many think it is OK to use it. I thinkbey the Church and accept all that that comes (as a wonderful gift from God).

I used to think that relations could not ethically be abstained from for any real period of time within marriage. I tended to think this because I thought you are married so that you don’t “burn” with lust, so it would be wrong to put off your spouse for any length of time. Thus, if the couple could not have children at the time, and it was going to extend for any length of time, I would have felt confused and might well have figured I needed to use contraception. This was because I had been told that NFP absolutely did not work. I realize that is a confused muddle, but what I am trying to say is that if you allow for the fact that the person in confused, I think they may well feel contraception is something that needs to be done to fulfill the obligation to have relations and to fulfill the obligation to postpone kids. This line of confused muddle would only occur to a married person, though, and not an unmarried person. It would only happen to an unmarried person if they had some other reason why they felt they had to have relations.

 

[AndyF]

Suppose Jesus would appear before you and tell you that your conscience was wrong.

If I didn’t understand I would state I need reflection on it. If it were too difficult to bare at the moment, I would say it and state I needed time to accept it. But I imagine some would say “I understand completely and instantly, thank you” and go to that meeting with the prostitute.

What is total knowledge without a degree of faith and sincerity. It then becomes a well learned fiction novel.

CC35: Man’s faculties make him capable of coming **to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. **But for man **to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in Faith. **

Therefore, the two are mutually inclusive and the foundation, Faith, since it can only be acquired ploddingly (1Cor 2,6) or immediately as befits the person’s disposition granted by God, then in order to obtain knowledge, a degree of acceptance is required, which takes me full circle to my post you reference. The goal here is intimacy with God, and having acquired knowledge isn’t enough. Therefore we can assume some will come upon knowledge only when their Faith will allow them to absorb it.

I get the impression you mistakenly believe knowledge is under total control of the learner. I think even knowledge requires grace, and at times the message may reside in the mail box of one’s mind, but God wants us to take it home and reflect on it and allow it to absorb.

Wouldn’t your conscience (and your mind) then be CHANGED?

 

[AndyF]

Consider also:

From the period of time from Mat 10,5 through to John 20,29, we know that Thomas taught the Good News along with the rest of the apostles as Jesus instructed. We know that Thomas entertained doubts and did not fully believe until the final moments, but Jesus did not hold it against him.

This is because of his resolve to obey, even though he didn’t understand. Jesus’s attitude is in keeping with a patient as well as merciful God.

Even non-believers are consecrated because of marriage to believers.

AndyF

 

[fix]

If you don’t believe this about the Catholic Church, then I think you have a bigger problem than your original issue.

Correct.

God knows whether we’re innocently confused, or whether our conscience was corrupted because we failed to follow it in the past (by so many sins: lack of prayer, humility, study, following God not our personal interests etc).

Right and how often is this point mentioned in these discussions?

It is always wrong to act against our conscience. But it is also (objectively) wrong to do something that is (objectively) wrong.

Again, great point and rarely mentioned.

If the Church commands X but we think X is wrong, then this might be a case of a question of conscience.

An erroneous conscience.

But what if the Church says X is always wrong, but we think X is sometimes PERMISSIBLE? (I.e. we think we CAN do X but don’t think we MUST do X).

How many think they are free to disobey because they would feel guility for obeying and how many would disobey because they simply would not like to have an unfullfilled desire?

 

[jmcrae]

I get the impression you mistakenly believe knowledge is under total control of the learner. I think even knowledge requires grace, and at times the message may reside in the mail box of one’s mind, but God wants us to take it home and reflect on it and allow it to absorb.

The “mail box of the mind.” What a great image!!

I have experienced this, too, where I “knew” something, without having fully absorbed it into my mind, and without being able to act on it effectively. Next time this happens to me, I shall have to pray for the grace to “get it out of my mail box.”

 

[Abira]

As I recall, St. Thomas Aquinas said that acting according to a conscience that is in error is a terrible dilemma. No matter what we do, we do wrong. It is always wrong to act against our conscience. But it is also (objectively) wrong to do something that is (objectively) wrong.

If the Church commands X but we think X is wrong, then this might be a case of a question of conscience.

But what if the Church says X is always wrong, but we think X is sometimes PERMISSIBLE? (I.e. we think we CAN do X but don’t think we MUST do X).

This reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian who was executed for his part in the plot to kill Hitler. He believed that murder was wrong but in some cases it was for the greater good.

faithstreams.com/ME2/Sites/Default.asp?SiteID=29EE738D89044C718E7899A97B37B6C4

S

 

[tigers08]

Primacy of conscience cannot overshadow Divinely Revealed truths. Therefore, pray and work harder to fully inform your conscience. A conscience of convenience cannot be justified.

I believe your conscience reveals more about God than the writings of ancient Jews. If your conscience tells you the church is wrong…leave it. A blind belief that a certain book is inerrant cannot be justified.

 

[fix]

I believe your conscience reveals more about God than the writings of ancient Jews.

That is not a blind belief?

 

[tigers08]

That is not a blind belief?

Not really. I define God as whatever created the universe. He therefore created all the matter in the universe. Since the laws of nature are constant (as far as we can tell), there is no randomness in the world. That means there is only one path through time, so when the universe was created, every event in it could be predicted. So “God” created my conscience, because when the universe started there was only one sequence of events that could form it. At least that’s the way I see it. The only really blind belief is that the laws of physics are constant, but there is evidence to support this.