What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

[Spirithound]

Documentation please? I would refer to catechism #1777 - 1802 with particular emphasis on 1782 and 1800.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

CCC 87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: ‘He who hears you, hears me’, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

892 Divine assistance is also given to te successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner’, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere…with religious assent’, which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless and extension of it.

 

[LilyM]

AFAIK= AS Far As I Know

estesbob,
1785 is explaining how we should form our conscience. We should be GUIDED by the authorative teaching of the Church among other things. However after all of the guiding and forming we are still bound by 1782 and 1800.

I don’t believe that a truly “well-formed” conscience can go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I think the catechism is clear that you must follow your “well-formed” conscience.

“Well-formed” precisely means a conscience that DOESN’T go against Catholic teaching. The Church is the repository of all Christ’s truth, which it teaches to us. How could any conscience that actually goes against that (I’m not talking about doubt or not understanding here, but actively rejecting it) possibly be considered well-formed?

 

[mercygate]

I follow only my own conscience. When in a spot, I might ask some trusted friends for advice, but the decision and responsibility rests with me.

Swell. It sounds like you don’t even understand what ‘conscience’ really means.

 

[rlg94086]

I would add this one…

**1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. ***The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

---

and this…

**1801 **Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

and my favorite…

**2039 **Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord. At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. ***Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

---

AFAIK= AS Far As I Know

estesbob,
1785 is explaining how we should form our conscience. We should be GUIDED by the authorative teaching of the Church among other things. However after all of the guiding and forming we are still bound by 1782 and 1800.

I don’t believe that a truly “well-formed” conscience can go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I think the catechism is clear that you must follow your “well-formed” conscience.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Good explanation here.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0610uan.asp

Thanks for that link, a very informative article. I think one of the key sentances is:
“Man is not morally free to follow his conscience while ignoring the truth. Man is, in fact, bound to form his conscience in accord with the objective truth of the divine law of God.”

 

[Brendan]

Hi everyone…

It’s a simple question really…what if:

You cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?​

and you:

know you are morally obliged to follow you conscience (at all times?)

You are only obligated to follow a well formed conscience. If one’s conscience is in opposition to a Revealed Truth, then one is NOT obligated to follow ones Conscience.

have fully, or to the best of your ability, informed your conscience

By defintion, the conscience would not be fully formed if it is in opposition to the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals. If one has formed it to the best of one’s own ability, but it still lacks consistency with the Church’s teachings, then one needs to seek additional aid in the matter.

 

[DallasCatholic]

“Well-formed” precisely means a conscience that DOESN’T go against Catholic teaching. The Church is the repository of all Christ’s truth, which it teaches to us. How could any conscience that actually goes against that (I’m not talking about doubt or not understanding here, but actively rejecting it) possibly be considered well-formed?

Please show me the document that defines “well-formed” according to your definition as I have never seen it defined that way.

 

[Brendan]

I follow only my own conscience. When in a spot, I might ask some trusted friends for advice, but the decision and responsibility rests with me.

How then, do you distinguish yourself from say, Nazi camp guards. They too followed only their own conscience.

Did their conscience guide them correctly?

 

[jmcrae]

Brendan;

You make some excellent points. In my own case, because of the fact that my conscience is extremely badly formed, due to a less than ideal upbringing and early environment, I find that I have to use the Church as my conscience, instead - otherwise, I end up in deep trouble.

(And why, in this vale of tears, should I bring more trouble upon myself than absolutely necessary? No - I will follow the Church, even when I don’t know what’s going on, rather than my badly-formed conscience, because I know that following Church teaching is more likely to result in a happy outcome.)

 

[LilyM]

Please show me the document that defines “well-formed” according to your definition as I have never seen it defined that way.

2039 of the Catechism: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

Ergo they must always comform to the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I would add this one…

and this…

and my favorite…

I think the operative words are “should not”. Notice they do not use the words “will not” or any similar strong injunction. Contrast that language with the language in 1800 which is very unamibiguous.

1800 A human being must **always ****obey **the certain judgment of his conscience.

I hate to split hairs but I believe that the Church, in it’s infinite wisdom leaves some definitions open because not every case can be neatly wrapped up. In almost every instance I would agree, as I have stated before, that a well-formed conscience will not go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I am willing to accept that there may exist someone in this world who BELIEVES in their heart that they have a fully formed conscience and that that conscience is directing them to do something contrary to Church teaching. Assuming that person has done everything in their power (pray, seek spiritual direction…etc) to properly form their conscience…and at the end of the day they still believe their course of action is correct…then they should follow their conscience.

 

[estesbob]

I think the operative words are “should not”. Notice they do not use the words “will not” or any similar strong injunction. Contrast that language with the language in 1800 which is very unamibiguous.

1800 A human being must **always ****obey **the certain judgment of his conscience.

I hate to split hairs but I believe that the Church, in it’s infinite wisdom leaves some definitions open because not every case can be neatly wrapped up. In almost every instance I would agree, as I have stated before, that a well-formed conscience will not go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I am willing to accept that there may exist someone in this world who BELIEVES in their heart that they have a fully formed conscience and that that conscience is directing them to do something contrary to Church teaching. Assuming that person has done everything in their power (pray, seek spiritual direction…etc) to properly form their conscience…and at the end of the day they still believe their course of action is correct…then they should follow their conscience.

The problem with this opens the door wide to do anything one wants. I have seen the primacy of conscience used an excuse to justify homosexual behavior, abortion and other actions directly in conflict with the Church’s teachings. In fact the so-called Catholic Democrats in congress actually sent the bishops a letter justifying their support of abortion under the “primacy of conscience doctrine.” I believe when we start rationalizing disobedience we have seriously, if not fatally, undermined the authority of ther Chrch

 

[DallasCatholic]

The problem with this opens the door wide to do anything one wants. I have seen the primacy of conscience used an excuse to justify homosexual behavior, abortion and other actions directly in conflict with the Church’s teachings. In fact the so-called Catholic Democrats in congress actually sent the bishops a letter justifying their support of abortion under the “primacy of conscience doctrine.” I believe when we start rationalizing disobedience we have seriously, if not fatally, undermined the authority of ther Chrch

I agree with you that it can and has been misused and will continue to be misused by those who are seeking to ignore the truth.

 

[LilyM]

I agree with you that it can and has been misused and will continue to be misused by those who are seeking to ignore the truth.

Any Catholic who consciously goes against the Magisterium, which is the authoritative revealer of all truth as Christ promised it would be, in the name of their private conscience, is misusing it in this way.

And any Catholic who does so is in fact no better than Henry VIII, who always claimed, and seems to have sincerely believed, that he was guided by his conscience, if not actually by God Himself, in most everything he did.

 

[rlg94086]

I think the operative words are “should not”. Notice they do not use the words “will not” or any similar strong injunction. Contrast that language with the language in 1800 which is very unamibiguous.

1800 A human being must **always ****obey **the certain judgment of his conscience.

I hate to split hairs but I believe that the Church, in it’s infinite wisdom leaves some definitions open because not every case can be neatly wrapped up. In almost every instance I would agree, as I have stated before, that a well-formed conscience will not go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I am willing to accept that there may exist someone in this world who BELIEVES in their heart that they have a fully formed conscience and that that conscience is directing them to do something contrary to Church teaching. Assuming that person has done everything in their power (pray, seek spiritual direction…etc) to properly form their conscience…and at the end of the day they still believe their course of action is correct…then they should follow their conscience.

Sure…but as 1801 clearly states (note the proximity to 1800 )
"Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt. " IOW…they may still be guilty of sin.

It seems clear to me that the best course of action is obedience. Conscience is described in the Catechism as an echo of God’s voice (1795). I don’t think God’s echo is going to be contrary to the Magisterium. If you can’t reconcile the two, then be obedient and keep praying. IOW…use NFP instead of ABC.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

1800 A human being must **always ****obey **the certain judgment of his conscience.

…
I have stated before, that a well-formed conscience will not go against clearly defined Church teaching. However, I am willing to accept that there may exist someone in this world who BELIEVES in their heart that they have a fully formed conscience and that that conscience is directing them to do something contrary to Church teaching. Assuming that person has done everything in their power (pray, seek spiritual direction…etc) to properly form their conscience…and at the end of the day they still believe their course of action is correct…then they should follow their conscience.

I agree that a “well-formed” conscience will not go against the authoritative teaching of the Church.

However if the conscience does go against well defined Church teachings, it is a sign that we remain in ignorance, and need to work harder to learn more. Only if the ignorance is invincible, and we cannot learn any more are we relieved of culpability for sinful acts taken in accord with our conscience.

However, rejecting the authoritative teaching of the Church is not a matter of an invincible ignorance.

**1792 **Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

**1793 **If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Chris

 

[DaughterSorrow]

This is an awesome question and I have to commend the posters here. Great debate.

It certainly all comes down to obedience. This is difficult, but it’s what we all must do. I struggle with some of this myself on issues that affect me personally.

For me to get pregnant would be fatal, yet I can’t find a loophole in church teachings to let my husband get a vasectomy. This is what we both wanted. My conscience originally tolds me that certainly God would forgive us if we did such a thing. But as I have prayed and talked with priests and read more, I understand the hard choice (and the safe choice!) is either abstience or NFP.

Obedience is difficult, but once you decide to submit to His will, you understand what well-formed means.

In Peace,
DS

 

[BobP123]

How then, do you distinguish yourself from say, Nazi camp guards. They too followed only their own conscience.
Did their conscience guide them correctly?

The question is whether they even had consciences. After a lifetime of brainwashing, it becomes a game of survival.

 

[BobP123]

Any Catholic who consciously goes against the Magisterium, which is the authoritative revealer of all truth as Christ promised it would be, in the name of their private conscience, is misusing it in this way.

Isn’t the Catechism THE Magisterium of the Church?

 

[chicago]

Isn’t the Catechism THE Magisterium of the Church?

While I understand what you are trying to say here, no, the catechism is not THE Magisterium. It is an expression of her teaching in guide, but not the teacher embodied.