What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?

[TMC]

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.

But if this is true, if conscience can be no more than an internalization of the catechism, why do even have such a doctrine?

 

[fix]

But if this is true, if conscience can be no more than an internalization of the catechism, why do even have such a doctrine?

The CCC is a compilation of Church teaching on specific matters. It reflects what the Church teaches. If Christ is the authority behind His Church then what the Church teaches is true. To claim one has a separate truth would be illogical, right? I mean truth cannot contradict truth?

That the book exists does not mean each moral decision is easy. We still have to apply those general principles to specific situations.

This is from Veritatis splendor :

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience* in the Church and her Magisterium. *As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself ".111 It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom “from” the truth but always and only freedom “in” the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the *service of conscience, *helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. *Eph *4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.

 

[Peregrino]

But if this is true, if conscience can be no more than an internalization of the catechism, why do even have such a doctrine?

Personally, when I hear the phrase “properly formed conscience” from other catholics my mind translates this phrase to “corresponds to the catechism”. A “properly formed conscience” is one that matches the catechism; any difference and you can be pretty sure that your conscience is not formed properly according to the church. Due to the “authority” argument of the church, you are not allowed to differ from church teachings, therefore if your conscience differs you must kick that conscience under the rug.

Sadly, your point of “why have a conscience” is completely valid. Maybe it is like an appendix, it is leftover from another age–maybe you don’t need a conscience now that the church is here to think for you. Just carry the CCC around. You can probably get it on your palm pilot these days…

Perhaps you should just assimilate and chuck that pesky conscience into the bin!!!

 

[pnewton]

The CCC is a compilation of Church teaching on specific matters. It reflects what the Church teaches. If Christ is the authority behind His Church then what the Church teaches is true.

I am a little confused here. I did not know the catechism had the charism of infallability. It is my understanding that only dogma must be believed with faith. There is even one area in which the catechsim crosses out of the area of faith and morals that I am aware. Must we believe this as dogma? If so, why is there a separate category called dogma?

 

[jmcrae]

I am a little confused here. I did not know the catechism had the charism of infallability. It is my understanding that only dogma must be believed with faith. There is even one area in which the catechsim crosses out of the area of faith and morals that I am aware. Must we believe this as dogma? If so, why is there a separate category called dogma?

The catechism contains the teachings of the Catholic Church in a summarized form. It is not infallible, because it could contain typos, and it could be badly translated from the original, and it makes references to the current discipline of the Church, which is subject to change, but the information that it is supposed to convey is the teaching of the Church - that is, the stuff that Catholics are supposed to believe and supposed to be following at this point in the history of the Church.

Dogma is the stuff that will never change - but just because something is not dogma (for example, penance on Fridays) doesn’t make it optional. It’s still required, even though at some future time, it might change.

 

[pnewton]

• that is, the stuff that Catholics are supposed to believe and supposed to be following at this point in the history of the Church.

Then even one with an informed conscience can have a consciencious objection, if a teaching is based on historical context. History is not a matter of faith and morals. I am referring specifically to section 2266 of the catechism.

 

[TMC]

Personally, when I hear the phrase “properly formed conscience” from other catholics my mind translates this phrase to “corresponds to the catechism”. A “properly formed conscience” is one that matches the catechism; any difference and you can be pretty sure that your conscience is not formed properly according to the church. Due to the “authority” argument of the church, you are not allowed to differ from church teachings, therefore if your conscience differs you must kick that conscience under the rug.

Sadly, your point of “why have a conscience” is completely valid. Maybe it is like an appendix, it is leftover from another age–maybe you don’t need a conscience now that the church is here to think for you. Just carry the CCC around. You can probably get it on your palm pilot these days…

Perhaps you should just assimilate and chuck that pesky conscience into the bin!!!

I’m not sure if we are in agreement on conscience or not. I take your point on assimilation, but find I am not capable of doing that. I still think that if we assume that each article of the catechism was written for a purpose and that none are meant to be superfluous, then the article on conscience means what it says. What it says is not merly that you may follow your conscience, but that you must do so.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

That does not mean that I will not continue to study and pray on these issues. I will. But I have to follow my conscience in the meantime.

 

[fix]

I am a little confused here. I did not know the catechism had the charism of infallability.

I did not think I said that? The CCC says:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. *Lk *22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith…

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition…

Which part of these teachings are in error? Which part do you think we are free to disregard after prayer and study?

It is my understanding that only dogma must be believed with faith.

Where is that taught?

Categories of belief.

and:

Canon 752: While the assent of faith is not required, a
religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any
doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the college of
Bishops, exercising their authentic <magisterium,> declare upon
a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to
proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are
therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord
with that doctrine.

and:

Moreover, it must also be kept in mind that if the authority of the Magisterium’s teachings admits of varying degrees, this does not mean that the authority of a lesser degree can be considered on the same level as theological opinions or, when it is not a question of infallibility, that only the arguments count and it is impossible for the Church to have a common certitude in a given doctrinal matter…

If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium…

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

There is even one area in which the catechsim crosses out of the area of faith and morals that I am aware. Must we believe this as dogma? If so, why is there a separate category called dogma?

It is the magisterium that is the living authority not any one book or document. If you think the CCC is offering only a prudential judgement in some area then you are free to seek clarification.

The issue in this thread is not whether the CCC is infallible The issue is are we free to reject Church authority and still claim a nonculpable conscience.

Does a subjective conscience justify man?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

No matter what, we can in faith RELY on the teachings of the church. Of course the grace moves much faster when we surrender to her authourity. I am aware that unless a man is conscientiously submissive to the Catholic Church his subjection is not really a matter of inner morality but is mechanical obedience. But is this not a safer option than relying on our own understanding? And even if something is “mechanical”, if it is a good thing, repeating it will only help to build virtue. (When a good action is done repeatedly, it becomes a good habit, or “Virtue”).
Being in the good habit of following the teachings of Holy Mother Church will only result in Virtuous living. Following Her teachings in aspects of conscience, will only result in you having a well informed conscience.

So, in response to the OPs question*“What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?”*
A. Do what the Church prescibes; follow her teachings; surrender our own (limited) understanding and will; and Trust!

If in doubt, (or spiritual drought), then Mother Church will pull you out.

 

[patrick1945]

To Fix, et.al. :

At the risk of oversimplifying your post #148, are you saying that ALL pronouncements of the Magisterium must be adhered to? If that’s the case, then I come back to the question raised earlier–what purpose is served by one’s conscience?

On the other hand, are you saying that all Mag. pronouncements must be adhered to even if one doesn’t believe that pronouncement? Thus, submission is required while “belief” is not necessarily required. If my paraphrasing is correct, then, perhaps, the role of one’s conscience is to help a person believe and not simply to submit.

I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m trying to understand these points.

Thanks.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Personally, when I hear the phrase “properly formed conscience” from other catholics my mind translates this phrase to “corresponds to the catechism”. A “properly formed conscience” is one that matches the catechism; any difference and you can be pretty sure that your conscience is not formed properly according to the church. Due to the “authority” argument of the church, you are not allowed to differ from church teachings, therefore if your conscience differs you must kick that conscience under the rug.

Sadly, your point of “why have a conscience” is completely valid. Maybe it is like an appendix, it is leftover from another age–maybe you don’t need a conscience now that the church is here to think for you. Just carry the CCC around. You can probably get it on your palm pilot these days…

Perhaps you should just assimilate and chuck that pesky conscience into the bin!!!

When you hear “properly formed conscience”, it appears to me that you are hearing “judgment” against your views and opinions. And, you resent that. I don’t blame you. I hate it too.

A properly formed conscience is one that has both sufficient knowledge and wisdom to discern that which is from God and that which is from Satan. None of us have a perfectly formed conscience on all matters and in all situations. We are all prone to errant judgment.

So, we are blessed to have the Church, Tradition, and Scripture to look for guidance. They all flow co-equally from the heart of the Trinity. In addition to these sources of guidance, God has blessed us with a conscience where the Holy Spirit “whispers” to us. Because the source of all this guidance is from Truth, they can never be in conflict. Ever. Truth is unchanging, perfect always, and Divine.

When there is conflict we either have a misunderstanding of the Truth or an conscience improperly formed.

MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUTH: I live in Nazi Germany and I am harboring Jews in my attic. The Gestapo comes to my door and ask if I have any Jews in the house. My understanding of the Truth is that I am never to make an untrue statement lest I be committing grave matter. My conscience says that I am to not tell the truth. If I follow my conscience, I am actually listening to the Holy Spirit. If I out the Jews in the attic, I have followed a misunderstanding.

CONSCIENCE IMPROPERLY FORMED: My daughter is pregnant as the result of a rape. My conscience says that it is ok to abort the baby because of the circumstances of the pregnancy. My understanding of Church Teaching (Truth) is that abortion is always wrong. If I encourage an abortion, I am following an improperly formed conscience. If I assent to my knowledge of the Truth that is contrary to my conscience, I am following right guidance from Christ (His Church).

What the Church teaches is that we are to always listen to our conscience but not always follow it. When we find conflict between the two, we are to engage our mind in study and prayer to find Peace between our conscience and Teaching. And until we find Peace, we are to engage our will by choosing to follow in Faith even when we have not reconciled the mind/understanding with Teaching.

It is this process of engaging our conscience, mind, and will thru prayer and study that we gain the gifts of the Holy Spirit of understanding and wisdom. Understanding is “to give a deeper insight and penetration of divine truths held by faith, not as a transitory enlightenment but as a permanent intuition.” Wisdom is the ability “to judge and order all things in accordance with divine norms and with a connaturality that flows from loving union with God.”

See Part 2 which is above.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Edit: I believe that these two posts answer the question of Fix in Post #150. However, I don’t want to speak for Fix.

Part 2

With the gift of understanding, The Holy Spirit aids a person to grasp truths of faith easily and intimately, and to penetrate the depths of those truths. This gift not only assists in penetrating revealed truths, but also natural truths in so far as they are related to the supernatural end. The essential quality of this gift is a “penetrating intuition” - in a sense, the moving beyond the surface. This gift, penetrating the truths of faith, operates in several ways: disclosing the hidden meaning of Sacred Scripture; revealing the significance of symbols and figures (like St. Paul seeing Christ as fulfillment of the rock of the Exodus account that poured forth water to quench the thirst of the Israelites (1 Cor 10:4); showing the hand of God at work in a person’s life, even in the most mysterious or troublesome events (like suffering); and revealing the spiritual realities that underlie sensible appearances (like penetrating the mystery of the Lord’s sacrifice in the ritual of the Mass). This gift brings the virtue of faith to perfection.

With the gift of wisdom, a person will see and evaluate all things - both joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, success or failure - from God’s point of view, and accept them with equanimity. With Wisdom, all things, even the worst, are seen as having a supernatural value. For example, the Gift of Wisdom gives value to martyrdom. Here a person arises above the wisdom of this world, and lives in the love of God. For this reason, the Gift of Wisdom brings to perfection charity.

My point is that we need our conscience to gain these gifts. We can’t just “chuck it into the bin”.

I’m not sure if we are in agreement on conscience or not. I take your point on assimilation, but find I am not capable of doing that. ****I still think that if we assume that each article of the catechism was written for a purpose and that none are meant to be superfluous, then the article on conscience means what it says. What it says is not merly that you may follow your conscience, but that you must do so.

That does not mean that I will not continue to study and pray on these issues. I will. But I have to follow my conscience in the meantime.

On matters to which you have no knowledge of Church Teaching, you are to follow your conscience. However, if you know it is in violation of Church Teaching, you are to assent, study and pray until your Conscience and knowledge of Church Teaching are One.

Fix and I debate this issue often because we have a slightly different focus. He stresses assent while I stress study and prayer in order to gain knowledge and understanding.

However, we both strongly agree that the Church Teaching is clear. Willful continued obstinate following of a conscience in conflict with known Teaching is grave matter. In this case, there is no ignorance, much less invincible ignorance. It is willful obstinance to reject the charism of the Church which flows directly from Christ. In this case, one is responsible for the sin one commits regardless of the discernment of their conscience. I urge you to assimilate the entire section on Conscience in context and not just the beginning. From the Catechism on Conscience which you reference:

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

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.

 

[Orionthehunter]

No matter what, we can in faith RELY on the teachings of the church. Of course the grace moves much faster when we surrender to her authourity. I am aware that unless a man is conscientiously submissive to the Catholic Church his subjection is not really a matter of inner morality but is mechanical obedience. But is this not a safer option than relying on our own understanding? And even if something is “mechanical”, if it is a good thing, repeating it will only help to build virtue. (When a good action is done repeatedly, it becomes a good habit, or “Virtue”).
Being in the good habit of following the teachings of Holy Mother Church will only result in Virtuous living. Following Her teachings in aspects of conscience, will only result in you having a well informed conscience.

So, in response to the OPs question*“What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?”*
A. Do what the Church prescibes; follow her teachings; surrender our own (limited) understanding and will; and Trust!

If in doubt, (or spiritual drought), then Mother Church will pull you out.

Pat, you have hit exactly where Fix and I sometimes depart. I don’t think we really disagree as we know the end point MUST be the same: Conscience and Teaching much converge.

Fix will advise as soon as it is known that Teaching and Conscience conflict, assent to your understanding of Teaching. Pray and study after you assent to gain the Peace of a Conscience and Teaching in concert. I advise slightly differently because I’ve experienced often the consequences of poor catechesis. I thought I understood Teaching in a way that was incorrect. I’m glad that I didn’t just assent as it would have (in my case) resulted in me violating a right conscience in fidelity to an errant understanding of Teaching.

But lest anyone think that Fix and I have a fundamental disagreement, we do not. We both assert that a conscience and Teaching in conflict must be reconciled and it must be done as soon as practicable in concert with the timing of the Holy Spirit. Fix is rightly concerned with the “mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience (CC1792)”. I am rightly concerned that one must always be present to their conscience to allow one to better hear the Holy Spirit and ultimately gain wisdom and knowledge (CC1779). To some degree, Fix is wrongly to impatient to allow the working of the Holy Spirit. I am wrongly to patient to allow the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TMC]

On matters to which you have no knowledge of Church Teaching, you are to follow your conscience. However, if you know it is in violation of Church Teaching, you are to assent, study and pray until your Conscience and knowledge of Church Teaching are One.

Willful continued obstinate following of a conscience in conflict with known Teaching is grave matter. In this case, there is no ignorance, much less invincible ignorance. It is willful obstinance to reject the charism of the Church which flows directly from Christ. In this case, one is responsible for the sin one commits regardless of the discernment of their conscience. I urge you to assimilate the entire section on Conscience in context and not just the beginning. From the Catechism on Conscience which you reference:

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

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.

OK, I agree with all of that except “you are to assent.” I have read all of the catechism, including all the the section on conscience. I have read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s excellent essay on conscience. I still come to the conclusion that I must follow my conscience as long as I believe that it does not arise from enslavement to my passions or any of the other euphamisms for believing only what I want to believe. The catechism also says:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

and it ends with this:

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

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

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

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

I know and have discussed on this thread that dissent is not to be taken lightly, and is not without risk that I will come to learn, perhaps at the worst possible time, that I am wrong.

In 1991 Cardinal Ratzinger said:

It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.

And then went on for a couple pages explaining why your conscience should match up with Church teachings. But if it does not, I believe the moral duty is to stand by, or at least not act against, your conscience.

This is not something I take lightly. I am not saying that I dissent on topics I don’t understand. If I don’t understand it I presume the Church is right. I am saying that if I do understand a Church teaching and cannot reconcile it with what I truly believe is right and true, I have to stand by right and truth as I have been given to understand each. I cannot do anything different.

 

[pnewton]

The issue in this thread is not whether the CCC is infallible The issue is are we free to reject Church authority and still claim a nonculpable conscience.

Thank you for your link. It was informative and helpful. I guess the answer to your question is “yes.” We do not have to follow Church authority, unless we are under a vow of obedience, except in areas of doctrine and dogma. Even then, it is only obstinate denial that leaves one in a state of heresy. But that is not my issue. I have no problem excepting the Church’s teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, but I respect that some might struggle with one issue or another. I think as long as they continue the struggle and try to form their conscience they are not in obstinate denial.

On the other hand, I do have an issue with the prudential majority opinion outside the area of faith and morals. I do not believe Catholics are bound to obedience in such areas.

 

[jmcrae]

This is not something I take lightly. I am not saying that I dissent on topics I don’t understand. If I don’t understand it I presume the Church is right. I am saying that if I do understand a Church teaching and cannot reconcile it with what I truly believe is right and true, I have to stand by right and truth as I have been given to understand each. I cannot do anything different.

If you are finding that the obvious right thing to do, and the teaching of the Church, are in conflict, then one possibility is that there is a piece of the puzzle missing - a third way that you have not yet considered.

In the example of the person hiding Jews in his attic, he may feel that he is committing sin by lying to the Nazis - but he knows that it would be wrong to disclose the location of the Jews, because he knows that the Nazis intend to murder them. So he feels caught between two obvious wrongs. The “third way” is that it is none of the Nazis’ business where the Jews are; therefore, it is not the sin of lying to mislead them - the sin of lying only applies to situations where the person asking the question has a right to know the answer, and in this case, the Nazis do not have the right to know the answer. Thus, it is no sin to make a true but irrelevant statement. (“I did not know that there were Jews in this neighborhood.” Last week was when you didn’t know this. But they don’t need to know that you found out differently before they came to your door.)

 

[Orionthehunter]

OK, I agree with all of that except “you are to assent.” I have read all of the catechism, including all the the section on conscience. I have read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s excellent essay on conscience. I still come to the conclusion that I must follow my conscience as long as I believe that it does not arise from enslavement to my passions or any of the other euphamisms for believing only what I want to believe. The catechism also says:

and it ends with this:

I know and have discussed on this thread that dissent is not to be taken lightly, and is not without risk that I will come to learn, perhaps at the worst possible time, that I am wrong.

In 1991 Cardinal Ratzinger said:

And then went on for a couple pages explaining why your conscience should match up with Church teachings. But if it does not, I believe the moral duty is to stand by, or at least not act against, your conscience.

This is not something I take lightly. I am not saying that I dissent on topics I don’t understand. If I don’t understand it I presume the Church is right. I am saying that if I do understand a Church teaching and cannot reconcile it with what I truly believe is right and true, I have to stand by right and truth as I have been given to understand each. I cannot do anything different.

I do not want to judge but what you write at the end appears to be “a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience”.

And, the consequences can be severe which is why we are to assent even when in disagreement. Continued willful obstinance contrary to known teaching is grave matter. You may be held to erroneous judgment. From the Catechism on erroneous judgement (which you conveniently omitted from your post):

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

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

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.

 

[estesbob]

Personally, when I hear the phrase “properly formed conscience” from other catholics my mind translates this phrase to “corresponds to the catechism”. A “properly formed conscience” is one that matches the catechism; any difference and you can be pretty sure that your conscience is not formed properly according to the church. Due to the “authority” argument of the church, you are not allowed to differ from church teachings, therefore if your conscience differs you must kick that conscience under the rug.

Sadly, your point of “why have a conscience” is completely valid. Maybe it is like an appendix, it is leftover from another age–maybe you don’t need a conscience now that the church is here to think for you. Just carry the CCC around. You can probably get it on your palm pilot these days…

Perhaps you should just assimilate and chuck that pesky conscience into the bin!!!

The purpose of the conscience is resolve those issues that are not specifically addressed in church teaching. Sadly many people use the alleged primacy of conscience to pretty much ignore the teaching of the Church they are uncomfortable with. Iin fact if you go to supposedly Catholic homosexual sites you will see that this is given as the reason why homosexual behavior is fully compatible with being a faithful Catholic…

 

[catharina]

Just a reminder for all of us and that is, we are flawed.

When I attempt to measure my 61 year-old personal conscience against a teaching of the 2000 year-old Church, teaching that flowed first from 3000 years of Jewish Law (and the Ten Commandments) then it’s clear where the truth and strength must be.

 

[fix]

For many people today, conscience suggests freedom to judge God’s law by our own personal resources and the right to reject the notion or reformulate this law as we think best.

    I imagine that to non-Christians this must seem rather odd: If moral and         religious teachings bind only to the extent that one's individual mind         and will enthuse about them, then pretty clearly the teachings do not         bind at all. What "binds" is simply the autonomous self, with all the         limitations that our selves are prey to. And to say "I am bound by me"         is hardly to make a meaningful moral utterance. Rather, it is to reject         the need for morality and creed and to claim that I should be allowed to         live as I choose within the constraints imposed by family, friends and         society.

     Of course, this theory is often dressed up with the claim that         conscience is a special faculty that speaks to us, rather like an         oracle. The theory may also be elevated to the status of a doctrine         —          the "primacy of conscience."

True and False Conscience