What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

[po18guy]

I couldn’t agree more.

It’s called obedience.

Those wascally Jesuwits! That advice sounds a lot like putting your God to the test: “Give it a couple of good shots, then, if you don’t like the answer, do it anyway and God will forgive”? Pretty darned risky. Nothing about the well-formed conscience always being in agreement with the church. Without a well-formed conscience, nothing you do will be unpolluted by sin. It’s not about changing God, His commandments, the church, its teaching, or anything - other than your conscience. Untold numbers of Godly men and women, over thousands of years, have wrestled with every conceivable moral matter and have yielded to the authority of the church. To follow self, to turn away is to reject God. You are free to do so, but just be aware of the price.

 

[Fr_CSsR]

Abira,

If you have honestly formed your conscience to the best of your ability and are truly open to the Holy Ghost and the matter is not sinful you must follow your conscience. If, however, the matter is sinful, you may not justify it by claiming it would violate your conscience. It is difficult to answer your question without knowing the particulars. Have you sought out the help and guidance of a priest? If not, then do so. While this forum can be an interesting place to debate issues, the people on here are not qualified to give you the answers you seek. I strongly doubt they have the ecclesiastical credentials necessary to make authoritative statements. This is about your salvation and you are playing with fire seeking an answer here. Just as you would not trust your physical health to those who are not qualified, do not trust your spiritual health to those who are not qualified, no matter what they claim. God bless you and Mary guide you.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

That would not be invincible as they would be informed. They would have gained the necessary knowledge. If they reject that knowledge that makes one culpable, not non culpable.

Remember the words:
They see but cannot perceive;
they hear but cannot comprehend.
The priest, and all his witnesses may believe that a satisfactory, cogent, and compelling proof has been given, but if the mindset of the listener is somehow fixed, then the proof cannot be grasped.
It is this fixedness of mindset which is the cause of invincible ignorance.
We cannot judge what mental trauma has caused this fixedness, thus we cannot judge the culpability of its results.
Fixed mindsets are actually quite common.
Northern Ireland was, and to some extent still is a place where they are common. They are also very common in the Middle East, and the Southern States.
Maybe they are a lot more common than you would expect.
Common sense is not as common as you might wish.

 

[Steve40]

If following your conscience has to do with just the way you think and thoughts and feelings, there isn’t much anyone can do about that. But, if following your coscience has to do with physical actions and sins of comission, don’t do it.

You can always decide not to do what you want to do. Physical choices on how we live our lives can be made either way. if there is no conflict with your conscience, you might as well go the way of the Church. If the answer is, it is too hard, then I’d call you a wimp. Something being too hard is not a reason not to make a better decission. If the answer is you don’t want to, then I’d say making the better decission sometimes involves what we don’t want.

If you don’t think it is a sin either way then go the way of the Church. If you don’t do this and decide to go your own way you could end up in hell. Have you ever heard the expression the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This expression may apply here.

 

[johnnydigit]

infallible church teachings are just that - infallible. man is fallible. your mind is fallible. your conscience is fallible. what happens when everything crumbles around you? you keep your faith. have faith in Jesus’ church.

but then again, could there not be someone who is so deranged that their conscience tells them murder is ok no matter what they reason - cannibal tribes? what about the law of God written on every man’s heart?

i wonder how many people who said to follow your conscience are not Catholic?

 

[fix]

Remember the words:
They see but cannot perceive;
they hear but cannot comprehend.
The priest, and all his witnesses may believe that a satisfactory, cogent, and compelling proof has been given, but if the mindset of the listener is somehow fixed, then the proof cannot be grasped.
It is this fixedness of mindset which is the cause of invincible ignorance.
We cannot judge what mental trauma has caused this fixedness, thus we cannot judge the culpability of its results.
Fixed mindsets are actually quite common.
Northern Ireland was, and to some extent still is a place where they are common. They are also very common in the Middle East, and the Southern States.
Maybe they are a lot more common than you would expect.
Common sense is not as common as you might wish.

Again, I cannot judge anyone’s culpability. I am speaking generally here. If you are proposing the possibility of a psychlogical block or some similiar thing then I would agree.

But, let us remember what the CCC says:
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.

Basically, having scales on our eyes does not always mean we are invincibly ignorant. It may mean we refuse to accept what we ought to accept.

 

[Penny_Plain]

How do you know when your conscience is wrong?

You don’t. That’s why you don’t need it.

It’s like the appendix.

 

[fix]

You don’t. That’s why you don’t need it.

It’s like the appendix.

Yep, that must be why so many of us decide to excise it when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Yep, that must be why so many of us decide to excise it when it becomes inconvenient.

I have the Catechism. Why do I need a conscience, especially if it disagrees with the Catechism?

 

[davidv]

I have the Catechism. Why do I need a conscience, especially if it disagrees with the Catechism?

Because no teaching contains all of the morally correct responses to every possible choice we have to make. God gave us an intellect. He expects us to use it.

 

[fix]

I have the Catechism. Why do I need a conscience, especially if it disagrees with the Catechism?

I have a math book. It claims 2+2=4. I disagree. Does that make me correct? The math book explains subtraction. I still have to apply those principles in many diverse situations. I may make mistakes. That does not mean the principles in the book are wrong and I am right.

 

[jmcrae]

I have a math book. It claims 2+2=4. I disagree. Does that make me correct? The math book explains subtraction. I still have to apply those principles in many diverse situations. I may make mistakes. That does not mean the principles in the book are wrong and I am right.

The math book also does not contain the exact numbers involved in your current transaction; nor would it be convenient to carry the math book out with you shopping, and continually look inside it to find out how much you are spending, or how much change you should be getting - for that, you need to inform your brain by learning the principles of addition and subtraction, so that you can calculate how much you will be paying for your purchases, and how much change you should be getting back from the money that you give to the cashier.

 

[Spirithound]

I have the Catechism. Why do I need a conscience, especially if it disagrees with the Catechism?

Because consulting the Catechism before every decision is quite laborious (even wading through that index once is quite a chore!)

 

[Penny_Plain]

I have a math book. It claims 2+2=4. I disagree. Does that make me correct? The math book explains subtraction. I still have to apply those principles in many diverse situations. I may make mistakes. That does not mean the principles in the book are wrong and I am right.

Ah. So the purpose of the conscience is to interpret and apply the principles outlined in the Catechism?

 

[fix]

Ah. So the purpose of the conscience is to interpret and apply the principles outlined in the Catechism?

Are mathematical principles true even without a math book?

I mean the CCC is a sure norm for teaching the faith. If we are seeking what is true it makes sense to read the CCC, and more documents, talk with people, pray, receive the sacraments, do works of charity, and remain open to more.

Or, is conscience the ultimate truth? I mean if my conscience tells me to be racist does that make racism good?

 

[richardwy]

It’s a simple question really…what if:

You cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

Obey the Church. Your conscience will change for the better.

I did it the wrong way. Followed my conscience until my selfish living harmed many about me and all but killed me.

 

[Steve40]

Some times the Church is wrong. For example: Crusades, Inquisition. It depends on what the topic is. I’d suggest talking to a trusted priest or deacon about your problem with the Church’s teaching. There may be a misunderstanding somewhere.

Sometimes people within the Church were wrong and the Crusades were not wrong if it were not for the crusades I might be muslim. I thank God for the Crusades. Even though some may have gone too far in some countries with the Inquisition we could sure use an Inquisitor today.

 

[Pug]

If you don’t think it is a sin either way then go the way of the Church.

This is worth thinking about. Usually discussions of conscience don’t bring to the fore the question of if the person has a conscience that is telling them they must act, and the Church says not, or if the person has a conscience that is telling them it is okay to act, and the Church says not.

If it is a case of you think it would be okay to act, but the Church says otherwise, then don’t act. That is in accordance with your conscience.

Unfortunately, some people find themselves in the other situation. I’m surprised that the common advice then is to break your conscience. I disagree with that. In fact, I find it hard to understand a situation where your conscience has already ruled on the matter and then you go on and consider the Church teaching after that, at least for a well-informed Catholic. Whatever the Church teaches would be included in the deliberations prior to the ruling of the conscience. If you are calling something the ruling of your conscience, then that is what it is. You are done considering. There is no considering afterwards, otherwise you hadn’t decided yet, and so your conscience had not yet ruled on the matter.

The only way that this common advice makes sense to me is if they are using a different definition for conscience. Maybe they mean “conscience” is how you feel about the situation or something. IF that is the case, then the advice makes perfect sense. I tend to think of “conscience” as your last, best judgment of what is right in the situation. (ie, after all factors are duly considered). Clearly you ought to follow such a judgment (and yes, the judgment could be erroneous, and even could be culpably erroneous, and lead to harm). It is, what do you call it, almost vacuously true.

note: I’m trying to use both meanings of “conscience” in this post, hoping it will be clear which I mean at each point.

 

[fix]

This is worth thinking about. Usually discussions of conscience don’t bring to the fore the question of if the person has a conscience that is telling them they must act, and the Church says not, or if the person has a conscience that is telling them it is okay to act, and the Church says not.

If it is a case of you think it would be okay to act, but the Church says otherwise, then don’t act. That is in accordance with your conscience.

Unfortunately, some people find themselves in the other situation. I’m surprised that the common advice then is to break your conscience. I disagree with that. In fact, I find it hard to understand a situation where your conscience has already ruled on the matter and then you go on and consider the Church teaching after that, at least for a well-informed Catholic. Whatever the Church teaches would be included in the deliberations prior to the ruling of the conscience. If you are calling something the ruling of your conscience, then that is what it is. You are done considering. There is no considering afterwards, otherwise you hadn’t decided yet, and so your conscience had not yet ruled on the matter.

The only way that this common advice makes sense to me is if they are using a different definition for conscience. Maybe they mean “conscience” is how you feel about the situation or something. IF that is the case, then the advice makes perfect sense. I tend to think of “conscience” as your last, best judgment of what is right in the situation. (ie, after all factors are duly considered). Clearly you ought to follow such a judgment (and yes, the judgment could be erroneous, and even could be culpably erroneous, and lead to harm). It is, what do you call it, almost vacuously true.

note: I’m trying to use both meanings of “conscience” in this post, hoping it will be clear which I mean at each point.

I am not sure what you are getting at here? I always try to read things by Cardinal Pell on this topic as he conveys information very clearly:

…this view is often dressed up with the claim that conscience is a special faculty that speaks to us, rather like an oracle, and it may even be elevated to the status of a doctrine: the “primacy of conscience.” But however it is presented, it stands in contrast to the view that conscience is instead simply the mind thinking practically and morally. We think well when we understand moral principles and apply them in clear and reasonable ways; we think badly when we ignore or reinvent moral principles, or apply them in ambiguous and unreasonable ways. “Good conscience,” in this way of understanding, means a good grasp and a good application of moral truth—for it is the truth that remains primary, the truth that is grasped and applied by the practical mind.

John Henry Newman was well aware of this position, which represents the best of Catholic thinking on the topic (for instance, the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas in De Veritate). Newman carefully distinguishes himself from those who equate conscience with integrity, sincerity, or preference. In a passage in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church), he writes: “Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, Who, both in nature and grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

The Inconvenient Conscience

 

[Pug]

I am not sure what you are getting at here? I always try to read things by Cardinal Pell on this topic as he conveys information very clearly:

I haven’t read that article in a few years, so I’ll just go with the clip you provided. Also, perhaps this from Thomas will indicate the direction of my thoughts. Go to article 5, on whether the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason. The “I answer that” portion is the most helpful.

I agree that our mind/intellect will rationally think about a situation, applying the norms that it knows. It is vulnerable to arriving at the wrong conclusion if it makes a mistake of fact or a mistake about what the moral norms are or a mistake about which situations the norm applies to, etc. Since it is dependent on the quality of the information it knows, it is mandatory that we inform it well.

But we must do what we believe we must do. If you certainly believe it would be wrong in God’s eyes to omit a particular action, then you must do that action. I don’t see any way around this.

I don’t think most discussions of conscience seem to realize what conscience is. They seem to use the word “conscience” to mean a feeling or a preference or social convention or something else. If one is treating it as such, then it makes perfect sense to advise a person to disregard its dictates. If someone is setting social convention or feelings against Church teaching, it makes sense to tell them to ignore social convention and follow Church teaching.

The beginning of my other post was about a slightly different situation. Some actions and decisions out there are fairly optional. For example, for most people there is no positive demand that they own a pet. So if you are perplexed about if owning a pet is an evil action or not, then you can just postpone getting a pet while you investigate.