What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abira
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As one who followed my conscience for years, I can tell you it is not self attesting, only self deceiving.

Having returned to the Church 5, almost 6 yrs ago, I can say this:
I try to form and follow my conscience in line with the Church. When I disagree or do not understand, I humbly submit to the Church. My Holy Mother Church knows better for me than I do.

Every time I follow that guideline, a peace just comes about me. It is not always easy, but is fruitful.

Fr. John Corapi has a great talk on Conscience, Freedom and Truth. www.fathercorapi.com

God’s Blessings and Wisdom,
Bob
 
I have struggled with this question myself. There is one area in which I have issue with the current Magesterium. I say current because I agree with the traditional view of the Church and Church fathers through the centuries. I have approached my formation of conscience by with serious intention of understanding why the Holy Father believes as he does, read extensively and discussed the topic with three different priests. None can properly answer my objections, nor have I ever found an answer in any church writings. I have no choice to differ with the current Church leadership.

However, in the past I have had the same problem with a matter of dogma. I followed the same path, with the exception that I always accepted the teaching as a matter of faith. Knowing that there are many things about God I do not understand, I found it easier to accept that I was probably wrong from the start. Of course, being a new catholic only made it easier.
 
As I understand Church teaching, you should follow your fully formed conscience. One of my favorite Jesuits explained it this way:
"If you have done everything within your power to understand the specific teaching, you have spent time in prayer, you have sought spiritual guidance, you have studied, you have tried to accept the teaching, you have prayed some more, you have sought the voice of the Lord…and your conscience still tells you to contradict Church teaching, well then you should follow that conscience. When you die, and stand before God to be judged, I believe he will say “You know that Church teaching that your conscience told you wasn’t right? Well it was…and you were wrong…but come on in anyway.”
I understand the principle of this, but it seems to me like a license to break the 10 commandments.
 
I have the Catechism. Why do I need a conscience, especially if it disagrees with the Catechism?
Your reference regarding culpability for your conscience is under Erroneous Judgment, 1790 - 1794. Humans do not have the liberty of “autonomy of conscience”, but are compelled by Truth (ie. Jesus) to follow Him wholly, which guidance and direction we get from the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Himself and protected by the Holy Spirit to be the infallible steward here on earth of the fullness of revealed truth.

We are morally bound to do the will of God, choosing good over evil. Exercising a “conscience” that is contrary to the will of God does not relieve one of the guilt of one’s actions.
Penny Plain’s question does a good job of illuminating the extremes on the issue of conscience. One extreme is that the conscience is such a inviolable gift from God that we are to elevate it to a level of Magisterium (source of all Truth). The other extreme is that the conscience is such a faulty barameter of Truth that it is to ignored when it is in conflict with stated Teachings of Christ.

It is the source of “friction” in our lives that gives us the power to discern good vs. evil. We need this “friction” because our fallen nature allows us to be confused. We MUST always listen to our conscience but not always follow it. When we listen to our conscience and we feel friction or discourse, something in our life is amiss. The Church is the ordained mouthpiece of Christ for which we can look for Peace. But it isn’t the source itself. Christ and the Holy Spirit can only give Peace.

Prayer and study is the means that we can resolve this discourse and requires the active participation of our conscience, mind and will. And the process of reconciling the Teaching with our conscience is how we gain greater understanding in our pursuit of greater Holiness.

There are two great sins with regard to our conscience. One is to follow it without regard to Church Teaching. The other is to ignore it when we “think” it to be in conflict with our understanding of Church Teaching. We need to delve into the conflict with a goal of reconciliation and understanding.
 
First of all, Steve40, I really hope you are trying to be funny. Otherwise I think you’re downright cruel. The OP doesn’t seem to be talking about Dogma. It sounds like something where the church says this behavior is good/bad, but their conscience says it is the opposite. Like the church said the crusades were good, and that all good catholics should participate, but their conscience says the crusades were bad.
 
First of all, Steve40, I really hope you are trying to be funny. Otherwise I think you’re downright cruel. The OP doesn’t seem to be talking about Dogma. It sounds like something where the church says this behavior is good/bad, but their conscience says it is the opposite.
If it is an issue of faith or morals, then our conscience needs to be formed correctly. That means assenting to what Christ tells us through His Church.
Like the church said the crusades were good, and that all good catholics should participate, but their conscience says the crusades were bad.
Was each crusade unjust?
 
Yes, each was. Vatican wanted land, so they sent all of Christiandom to go kill as many heretics as possible. It wound up with lots and lots of dead Christians. I think it was only the first one that had any success. It got so bad there was a children’s crusade. Tons of children (like 6 and 7 not like 17 and 18) marched out. They were all killed or sold into slavery.
 
Yes, each was. Vatican wanted land, so they sent all of Christiandom to go kill as many heretics as possible. It wound up with lots and lots of dead Christians. I think it was only the first one that had any success. It got so bad there was a children’s crusade. Tons of children (like 6 and 7 not like 17 and 18) marched out. They were all killed or sold into slavery.
I think that is for another thread, but history does not seem to be on your side.
 
I couldn’t agree more. It’s called obedience.
And obedience hinges on trust. So much of the opposition to Church teachings is based on broken trust.

Faith cannot be unreasonable. If a person cannot follow the reasoning, then he needs to ask why. God is not the author of confusion. And therefore neither is the Church.

At the root of all confusion is some form of incomplete equation, some non sequitur which in turn is based on some form of denial which in turn is based on an unwillingness to look at some specific aspect of the Truth in one’s own life.

In Matthew we are taught that ALL who are brought to Jesus are healed. ALL, not some. Broken trust is no exception. Jesus will heal broken trust. He will heal blindness.
 
…Like the church said the crusades were good, and that all good catholics should participate, but their conscience says the crusades were bad.
Yeah, and examine how much they know about what actually happened during the crusades and the root of the matter comes to light: that is that opinions are sometimes formed on antipathy against the Church, a willingness to condemn the Church at all costs, rather than on empirical evidence. Perhaps it would be tremendously useful to see if we can agree on what the term ‘conscience’ means first?

🙂
 
The teachings on conscience are difficult, in my opinion, difficult to understand and difficult to follow. To say that a person’s conscience is invalid (or not “well-formed”) unless it aligns with all of the Church’s teachings would render an entire article of the catechism superfluous. What is the point in having a doctrine on conscience in that case? But to say that this doctrine is an easy out of Church teaching, an easy rationalization for any dissent is also wrong. I agree with what DallasCatholic said way back in post 3:
As I understand Church teaching, you should follow your fully formed conscience. One of my favorite Jesuits explained it this way:
"If you have done everything within your power to understand the specific teaching, you have spent time in prayer, you have sought spiritual guidance, you have studied, you have tried to accept the teaching, you have prayed some more, you have sought the voice of the Lord…and your conscience still tells you to contradict Church teaching, well then you should follow that conscience. When you die, and stand before God to be judged, I believe he will say “You know that Church teaching that your conscience told you wasn’t right? Well it was…and you were wrong…but come on in anyway.”
The difficult part is not studying the Church’s teachings, getting guidance, and so forth. The difficult part is really, truly scrutinizing your own conscience, knowing your own mind and heart well enough to truly understand if you are merely rationalizing or if you are truly listening to the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” that Augustine (and the catechism) tells us speaks in each of our hearts.

Have most who disagree with the Church done this? I have no idea. That will be a conversation for them to have with God. I can only speak of my own heart. The conversation that I don’t want to have with God is the one that starts like this: "You know that Church teaching that your conscience told you wasn’t right, but you ignored my voice and followed it anyway? Well you should have listened to my voice… "
 
The teachings on conscience are difficult, in my opinion, difficult to understand and difficult to follow. To say that a person’s conscience is invalid (or not “well-formed”) unless it aligns with all of the Church’s teachings would render an entire article of the catechism superfluous. What is the point in having a doctrine on conscience in that case? But to say that this doctrine is an easy out of Church teaching, an easy rationalization for any dissent is also wrong. I agree with what DallasCatholic said way back in post 3:

The difficult part is not studying the Church’s teachings, getting guidance, and so forth. The difficult part is really, truly scrutinizing your own conscience, knowing your own mind and heart well enough to truly understand if you are merely rationalizing or if you are truly listening to the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” that Augustine (and the catechism) tells us speaks in each of our hearts.

Have most who disagree with the Church done this? I have no idea. That will be a conversation for them to have with God. I can only speak of my own heart. The conversation that I don’t want to have with God is the one that starts like this: "You know that Church teaching that your conscience told you wasn’t right, but you ignored my voice and followed it anyway? Well you should have listened to my voice… "
Really I do get your point. Having said that I’ll add a few things. God is not the fellow next door. I can’t imagine that He’ll be pointing out our “errors” and sins one by one. I think it’s it’s more likely that at the moment of death we’ll know in an instant where our disordered emotions and/or intellectual pride have led us astray. What we have chosen to be blind to seeing in this life will be illuminated in a flash when our deaths have come upon us.

I don’t see God as any grim reaper but I do think that with His many untold gifts to us, come His expectations that we will have a willingness to follow the teachings of His Church in all but the most rare and critical matters of Church-Conscience conflict. It’s obvious to me that we won’t necessarily understand all teachings and some personalitites have a dreadful time accepting that - far more than other personalities do. Still, we are to make to make knowing, loving and serving God in this world our singular priority.
 
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.
I agree, that decisions and responsibility rests on each one of us. If, however, this was all we needed, why did Jesus form the church/authority. So often, we have this carelessly thought out decision process, one which lowers the standard to meet our personal desires. In order to make decisions we need an ultimate standard to look to. “The law is for the lawless” .
Laws must be placed so that we all have a standard of conduct. However, as this gentleman stated, we all have been given a “free will” and the responsibility rests on us.

Hibblyn
 
Back in my seminary days (I didn’t finish!), a priest delved at length into this topic. In addition to explaining “well-formed conscience”, he introduced us to the “compromised conscience”. Simply put, a CC is one that has deceived itself for so long a time period that it now has “tricked” the person into believing that his/her conscience is providing proper guidance. I remember this priest’s words after 40 years: “Gentlemen, those with a compromised conscience are to be truly pitied. They have lost their moral rudder. rather than being a help, their conscience has become a hindrance to their spiritual and moral dvelopment”.

His advice: “prayer, study and reflection…prayer, study and relection”. he added that God will ALWAYS answer, but be sure that you’re willing to accept and to follow His reply.
 
Really I do get your point. Having said that I’ll add a few things. God is not the fellow next door. I can’t imagine that He’ll be pointing out our “errors” and sins one by one. I think it’s it’s more likely that at the moment of death we’ll know in an instant where our disordered emotions and/or intellectual pride have led us astray. What we have chosen to be blind to seeing in this life will be illuminated in a flash when our deaths have come upon us.

I don’t see God as any grim reaper but I do think that with His many untold gifts to us, come His expectations that we will have a willingness to follow the teachings of His Church in all but the most rare and critical matters of Church-Conscience conflict. It’s obvious to me that we won’t necessarily understand all teachings and some personalitites have a dreadful time accepting that - far more than other personalities do. Still, we are to make to make knowing, loving and serving God in this world our singular priority.
I think we are more or less in agreement, but I think that if we do “know in an instant where our disordered emotions and/or intellectual pride have led us astray” that will be God pointing out each of our errors to us individually. The mechanism is, of course, mysterical and I don’t intend my anthropomorphic imagination of a conversation with God to be taken too literally (but who knows?)
Back in my seminary days (I didn’t finish!), a priest delved at length into this topic. In addition to explaining “well-formed conscience”, he introduced us to the “compromised conscience”. Simply put, a CC is one that has deceived itself for so long a time period that it now has “tricked” the person into believing that his/her conscience is providing proper guidance. I remember this priest’s words after 40 years: “Gentlemen, those with a compromised conscience are to be truly pitied. They have lost their moral rudder. rather than being a help, their conscience has become a hindrance to their spiritual and moral dvelopment”.

His advice: “prayer, study and reflection…prayer, study and relection”. he added that God will ALWAYS answer, but be sure that you’re willing to accept and to follow His reply.
Yes, this is exactly my point. There is such a thing as primacy of conscience, but it is not to be taken lightly. It is not just “I don’t believe that”, and there is considerable chance that we will delude ourselves by compromising our conscience.

But nonetheless, it is important that we examine our conscience. Without conscience, faith becomes no more than an exercise in meticulously following the rules. Ours is not such a religion. Ours is a religion of Truth and Faith. If we say “I have no Faith, and I cannot discern the Truth, but I will follow these rules for fear of Hellfire,” then we have no true religion. In that situation Faith becomes merely a mercenary attempt to force ourselves into salvation by dint of technicality.

At the same time, whenever our conscience conflicts with the Church, we have to understand that we put ourselves in a grave situation. If our conscience is not true, but a self distortion, even an unconscious one, then we do not worship God at all, but instead our own reflection. I don’t believe that guarantees damnation, but it can’t be good. If our conscience is true, then we must follow it. To fail to do so is affirmatively dishonest. It is bending the Truth as we understand it under the pressure and influence of our times. That is not good either.

Some will point out that those that do not examine the doctrines of the Church too closely, but put simple faith in them like a child, will never face this crisis. That is true, and I envy those called to this simple faith. I have not been, and its seems as if most of those who post here have not either. I believe I am required to examine my conscience. In the vast majority of instances it lines up with the Church’s teachings. Where it does not I continue to pray, study, and reflect. But as long as it is given to me to believe that my conscience is truly and without self-distortion in conflict with the Church, I must remain in dissent.
 
I believe I am required to examine my conscience. In the vast majority of instances it lines up with the Church’s teachings. Where it does not I continue to pray, study, and reflect. But as long as it is given to me to believe that my conscience is truly and without self-distortion in conflict with the Church, I must remain in dissent.
Nicely put. I am in the same boat. I find myself modifying Socrates: “The unexamined faith is not worth living”.
 
what if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

Could you elaborate? Which teachings are your conscience having discord with? What’s the teaching saying? What’s your conscience saying and why is your conscience saying that?​

and you:

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

have fully, or to the best of your ability, informed your conscience
Again, could you elaborate? Exactly how fully did you inform your conscience? What specific things did you do?
have read book after book and tried discussing this issue around other topics
how many books after books did you read? which titles? could you clarify what you mean by “discussing this issue around other topics?” sounds vague to me…but then that’s me…🙂
have gone away from the forums for months to think and still feel the same way, but know that the church does not teach how you feel you should act on an issue

feelings aren’t facts and love is a choice, not always a feeling…as is faith…​

I’ve left the issue I’m thinking of as a blank as in a way it’s kinda not relevent to the question…
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Could you clarify it? Are you saying your conscience and “church teaching” - “church teaching” here, to me, sounds vague- is “blank,” that is, neither, has any meaning to you? Are you saying that conscience and church teaching aren’t relevant? I don’t understand your statement. I’m sorry. I’m trying.
but I don’t mind if anyone needs to know to answer me better or if anyone PM’s me… and also 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?
Which thoughts exactly can’t you unify with the church? Could you be more specific?
What happens if you never manage it and should follow your conscience?
I have no idea what’s going to happen. That’s God’s territory. Have you discussed your struggle with God? Do you have a spiritual director?
 
The teachings on conscience are difficult, in my opinion, difficult to understand and difficult to follow. To say that a person’s conscience is invalid (or not “well-formed”) unless it aligns with all of the Church’s teachings would render an entire article of the catechism superfluous. What is the point in having a doctrine on conscience in that case?
How does one have a properly formed conscience if such a conscience rejects truth? The CCC passages must all be reconciled with each other.

I would say objectively a conscience that does not accept what Christ teaches through His Church would be an erroneous conscience. How culpable one is for that is a separate matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top