What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

[mlchance]

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

You are not morally obligated to follow your conscience at all times. You are morally obligated to conform your actions to the dictates of divine law and natural law. If you cannot reconcile your conscience to this, try harder.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[FLCathMom]

If one has been informed of Church teaching on a particular matter, then one’s conscience has been informed. An informed conscience is one that understands what the morally correct action is. Understanding why is not a prerequisite.

If you know what Church teaching is, then your conscience is informed and you are bound to follow that. Your conscience is not what you feel about the matter or whether you agree with the reasons behind it.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Again, this is one of those situations where informing your conscience on a matter that is an apparent conflict between church teaching and the urging of your INFORMED conscience would be to speak on the matter with an orthodox Catholic Priest. The decision is still, ultimately yours…with the rules mentioned in CCC 1789 as a guide you have to eventually make a choice, trust your conscience or deny it and follow the letter of the “law” Here’s the crux, disobeying your conscience can be a sin, but obeying your conscience and being wrong in your judgement can also be a sin. TALK TO AN orthodox PRIEST.

 

[catharina]

Again, this is one of those situations where informing your conscience on a matter that is an apparent conflict between church teaching and the urging of your INFORMED conscience would be to speak on the matter with an orthodox Catholic Priest. The decision is still, ultimately yours…with the rules mentioned in CCC 1789 as a guide you have to eventually make a choice, trust your conscience or deny it and follow the letter of the “law” Here’s the crux, disobeying your conscience can be a sin, but obeying your conscience and being wrong in your judgement can also be a sin. TALK TO AN orthodox PRIEST.

Please forgive me. I am not attempting to quibble but where did the term “orthodox” preist orginate in terms of a reference such as yours? Isn’t it something that some RCs in the USA have sort of invented? If you mean to say a RC priest who is in union with Rome and its teaching then why can’t you say that? Since “the Orthodox” do exist in their own right and rite, isn’t it confusing to label Roman Catholic priests as “orthodox” even though you are implying “in union with Church teaching” I guess? This term has been in use for a number of decades now but I can’t recall ever hearing it used by Rome. Am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[mercygate]

Please forgive me. I am not attempting to quibble but where did the term “orthodox” preist orginate in terms of a reference such as yours? Isn’t it something that some RCs in the USA have sort of invented? If you mean to say a RC priest who is in union with Rome and its teaching then why can’t you say that? Since “the Orthodox” do exist in their own right and rite, isn’t it confusing to label Roman Catholic priests as “orthodox” even though you are implying “in union with Church teaching” I guess? This term has been in use for a number of decades now but I can’t recall ever hearing it used by Rome. Am I misunderstanding your point?

He used a small “o”: we all know what that means. “In union with Church teaching.” It’s easier to write than “a priest in union with Rome and its teaching.”

Where are you from?

 

[rlg94086]

He used a small “o”: we all know what that means. “In union with Church teaching.” It’s easier to write than “a priest in union with Rome and its teaching.”

Back-up to mercygate’s comment…from Websters. Definition 1 is the usage without capitalization. The “especially in religion” comment is because orthodox can be used in in non-religious verbage as well. “He took an orthodox approach to surfing” would not mean he signed himself from right-to-left before hitting the waves.

Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?orthod06.wav=orthodox’))
Pronunciation: 'or-th&-"däks
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English orthodoxe, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French orthodoxe, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion – more at DOXOLOGY
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b : CONVENTIONAL
2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a : EASTERN ORTHODOX b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism

• or·tho·dox·ly adverb

 

[catharina]

mercygate and rlg - of course it’s clear in the written word but when I first heard it in spoken speech in the 1980s, the term led to lots of confusion. it’s a part of quite common vocabulary in some parts of the country still, while the term “faihful” might be used more commonly in others.

BTW, mercygate, I’m from Chicago but can’t see the relevance of that in this matter. Where is your home?

 

[mercygate]

mercygate and rlg - of course it’s clear in the written word but when I first heard it in spoken speech in the 1980s, the term led to lots of confusion. it’s a part of quite common vocabulary in some parts of the country still, while the term “faihful” might be used more commonly in others.

BTW, mercygate, I’m from Chicago but can’t see the relevance of that in this matter. Where is your home?

Since you said: “in the U.S.” I thought you might be from abroad.

So, consider yourself un-confused.

 

[catharina]

Oh - and now you’re not confused either. I said “in the U.S.” since I find I have little to say about the Church around the world except for a few areas of special interest to me, like China.

Also it seems possible (to me) that the Church in this country might face some unique problems since many Americans view themsleves as “American” first and foremost with inborn rights to challenge everything under the sun.

Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

 

[mercygate]

Also it seems possible (to me) that the Church in this country might face some unique problems since many Americans view themsleves as “American” first and foremost with inborn rights to challenge everything under the sun.

Yup. Following on Pius IX’s condemnation of “modernism”, Pope Leo XIII added a specific mention of “Americanism” – we have our very own heresy named after us!

 

[catharina]

Yup. Following on Pius IX’s condemnation of “modernism”, Pope Leo XIII added a specific mention of “Americanism” – we have our very own heresy named after us!

I had no idea. Now, why am I not surprised?

 

[fix]

Consider reading what Cardinal Ratzinger said on this topic:

…Morality of conscience and morality of authority as two opposing models, appear to be locked in struggle with each other. Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority. Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word. Some authors reduce conscience in this its aspect of final arbiter to the formula: conscience is infallible.

Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances…

 

[mercygate]

Consider reading what Cardinal Ratzinger said on this topic:

Aaaaaahhhhhh! Do you not LOVE the way B-16 THINKS?!!!

 

[catharina]

Aaaaaahhhhhh! Do you not LOVE the way B-16 THINKS?!!!

Crystal clear!

 

[fix]

Again, this is one of those situations where informing your conscience on a matter that is an apparent conflict between church teaching and the urging of your INFORMED conscience would be to speak on the matter with an orthodox Catholic Priest. The decision is still, ultimately yours…with the rules mentioned in CCC 1789 as a guide you have to eventually make a choice, trust your conscience or deny it and follow the letter of the “law” Here’s the crux, disobeying your conscience can be a sin, but obeying your conscience and being wrong in your judgement can also be a sin. TALK TO AN orthodox PRIEST.

I would disagree with your conclsion here. The crux is proper formation of the conscience. As has been said many times conscience is a pupil, not a teacher. We tend to elevate conscience to such a degree we want it to be superior to truth and moral law. But, a subjective conscience does not justify us.

An erroneous conscience is something to correct and reform. People take one part of the CCC and neglect the other parts as if they are in opposition to each other. In other words, a Catholic who claims they must not act against their conscience rarely mention that that includes proper formation. Failing to assent to the moral law does not make an erroneous conscience non culpable.

 

[mercygate]

I would disagree with your conclsion here. The crux is proper formation of the conscience. As has been said many times conscience is a pupil, not a teacher. We tend to elevate conscience to such a degree we want it to be superior to truth and moral law. But, a subjective conscience does not justify us.

An erroneous conscience is something to correct and reform. People take one part of the CCC and neglect the other parts as if they are in opposition to each other. In other words, a Catholic who claims they must not act against their conscience rarely mention that that includes proper formation. Failing to assent to the moral law does not make an erroneous conscience non culpable.

The word “conscience” itself, has something to say about this. It means, literally, “knowing *with.” *So, if your ‘conscience’ tells you something that is against the natural moral law, and against Church teaching, you are not “knowing with” you are “knowing against.”

 

[buffalo]

Primacy of conscience is not logically supportable.

For instance, say my conscience tells me it is Ok to murder.

 

[fix]

The word “conscience” itself, has something to say about this. It means, literally, “knowing *with.” *So, if your ‘conscience’ tells you something that is against the natural moral law, and against Church teaching, you are not “knowing with” you are “knowing against.”

Yes, very interesting. It seems a sticky issue because we all hear about how we must follow our conscience and even the CCC says that. Yet, we stop right there as if that one statement needs no clarification.

I once heard on EWTN someone say that only emphasizing one aspect of the truth while downplaying the other part of the truth can make the truth a lie. I think this issue is like that. Only claiming we must follow our conscience without mentioning the obligation to seek the truth would mean anything goes.

 

[Abira]

Thanks to everyone else who’s posted here, I especially liked Pope Benedict’s comments on it, although I would have to read more from him to know how he relates this clarity of thought directly to what it says in the catechism

a few posts have asked how the formation os conscience and following conscience is influenced by one beinga protestant and not having any concrete church teaching as a Catholic would.

I don’t really know that I can answer from the point of view of an Anglican any more as the main reason that I cannot convert to catholicism is all wrapped up in the questions coming out in this thread for me… although I think there will be many more things that put me off before I finally take a deep breath and go and talk to someone about it lol.

I agree that there has to be some real truth that is unmoved by the angle it is viewed from or the time it is seen from in history. If everything changed then there wouldn;t be anything true left over.

For me this still hasn’t fully cleared up this issue as I still feel drawn to follow my conscience even though this would prevent me from joining the church. There was a poster earlier who commented that we aren’t called to ‘feel’ but to follow, and I think maybe I’ll have to think about that comment for some time before I make a decision.

Take care, thanks loads.

S

 

[jmcrae]

Abira;

If Christ is calling you to become a Catholic, then of course you must follow Him, and trust that He will crush all of the obstacles in your path in His good time.

Sometimes, we just need to make a leap of faith.