What should I do? (a conscience vs church issue)

[Debora123]

What step should I take if my conscience doesn’t line up with a couple Church teachings regarding sexuality?

My conscience is well informed. I’ve done a lot of reading and a lot of praying… especially since I got married, but even before then. I grew up reading Mary Beth Bonacci, and have also read Christopher West and TOB multiple times.

I’ve spoken with my priest/spiritual adviser about these issues in great depth and he instructed me to follow my conscience, and reiterated that I do have a well informed conscience. I honestly think there is human error within the Church regarding these issues, though I still believe in the sanctity of the Church as being the one true Bride of Christ.

Sometimes I find myself even entertaining the idea of leaving the Church, only to catch myself and remind myself that of course, I would never do that.

Can I still be a faithful Catholic while following my conscience in regards to the issues I’ve spoken about with my adviser?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I liked listening to Father Stephen Toracco from EWTN. He would speak on Theology of the Body and he seemed to me to have a very clear mind, very smart man.

I looked up formed conscience on EWTN…and got this answer. Maybe it will help you.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=325763&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=formed+conscience&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=18&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

What step should I take if my conscience doesn’t line up with a couple Church teachings regarding sexuality?

My conscience is well informed. I’ve done a lot of reading and a lot of praying… especially since I got married, but even before then. I grew up reading Mary Beth Bonacci, and have also read Christopher West and TOB multiple times.

I’ve spoken with my priest/spiritual adviser about these issues in great depth and he instructed me to follow my conscience, and reiterated that I do have a well informed conscience. I honestly think there is human error within the Church regarding these issues, though I still believe in the sanctity of the Church as being the one true Bride of Christ.

Sometimes I find myself even entertaining the idea of leaving the Church, only to catch myself and remind myself that of course, I would never do that.

Can I still be a faithful Catholic while following my conscience in regards to the issues I’ve spoken about with my adviser?

I don’t want to ask you to divulge deeply personal information over the internet, so you’ll have to use your discretion here, but can you sort of give us a ballpark hint, as to what you’re referring to when you say “teachings regarding sexuality”?

I’ll quote something I said to someone else, that’s related to the feeling you have that the Church may be teaching doctrinal error regarding sexuality:

Deus_lo_vult:

1. Frankly, I don’t understand how you’ve come to the determination that, of all the Catholic dogmas that you claim to believe, Papal Infallibility is the one you get stuck on. It’s the most fanatastical of Catholic beliefs to you…

On the other hand, you believe that God, through the working of a HOLY SPIRIT, which is entirely imperceptible to human senses, working through a human vessel* in Persona Christi *(a priest acting in the person of Someone else) can turn bread and wine into the flesh and blood (without altering their appearance, taste, or other physical properties detectable to human senses or to human science) of a God-Man, or Son of Man who was fully divine and fully human, who was conceived by a Virgin 2,000 years ago and rose from the dead…

and yet you cannot believe that same Holy Spirit that does all the things mentioned above, can preserve a human being (the Pope) from teaching doctrinal error?

That’s like saying to someone, “I don’t believe you can walk, but I bet you’re a great dancer!”

That baffles me, sir.

The post can be viewed in its totality here

 

[1ke]

We must give religious assent to the teachings of the Church. That means submission of intellect and of will.

Can you break one of the Ten Commandments and put it under the umbrella of following your conscience? You are fooling only yourself if you do. Those things you “disagree” with are enumerated clearly under sins against the Ten Commandments.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t want to ask you to divulge deeply personal information over the internet, so you’ll have to use your discretion here, but can you sort of give us a ballpark hint, as to what you’re referring to when you say “teachings regarding sexuality”?

No problem.

1. I don’t think non abortificient contraception is wrong. (as long as the couple is still open to bringing children into their marriage, and lovingly accept whatever child they do conceive)
2. I don’t think it’s wrong for husband and wife to sometimes bring each other to climax outside of intercourse. (as long as it doesn’t become a substitute for intercourse, I see nothing wrong with it happening on occasion).

The second one is something I can follow, though the first really effects my life and my marriage, and this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

 

[Spirithound]

What step should I take if my conscience doesn’t line up with a couple Church teachings regarding sexuality?

I think you need to form your conscience to Church teaching. There are plenty of specific circumstances that the catechism does not explicitly cover. Where the Church has ruled, we must follow.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

No problem.

1. I don’t think non abortificient contraception is wrong. (as long as the couple is still open to bringing children into their marriage, and lovingly accept whatever child they do conceive)
2. I don’t think it’s wrong for husband and wife to sometimes bring each other to climax outside of intercourse. (as long as it doesn’t become a substitute for intercourse, I see nothing wrong with it happening on occasion).

The second one is something I can follow, though the first really effects my life and my marriage, and this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

I don’t pull any punches…I don’t enjoy that some people are hurt by a stern rebuke, but I call them like I see them, and I think you’d do the same for me.

1. I don’t understand how you can be open to the possibility of children while taking steps to prevent children, that is, steps which you hope will prevent conception; what you’re talking about is more of a conditional openness to children, which you might argue, is not openness at all. You’re only open if you can have your way and at the time of your own choosing. Is that really openness to God?

For an act to be morally licit, one condition is that the intention must be pure. From what I gather, yours is not.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

…

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1. If you remember that God is the Author of all life, I think that determining for yourself when and if life should begin is a usurpation of an authority that belongs only to God. I can see why someone might have this opinion from a secular point of view, but I don’t think this view stands up to Christian theology.

As you know sex is a spiritually unitive process. I think that sex becomes trivialized when reproductive possibility is removed from it. Just look at how sex is now treated by Hollywood. It is no longer a gift from God, but a toy for our own enjoyment.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

…

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

Although you seem to indicate by virtue of your language that you’ve already decided what you’re going to do. So, I don’t think you’ll be swayed by anything I have to say.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t pull any punches…I don’t enjoy that some people are hurt by a stern rebuke, but I call them like I see them, and I think you’d do the same for me.

1. I don’t understand how you can be open to the possibility of children while taking steps to prevent children, that is, steps which you hope will prevent conception; what you’re talking about is more of a conditional openness to children, which you might argue, is not openness at all.

For an act to be morally licit, one condition is that the intention must be pure. From what I gather, yours is not.

1. If you remember that God is the Author of all life, I think that determining for yourself when and if life should begin is a usurpation of an authority that belongs only to God. I can see why someone might have this opinion from a secular point of view, but I don’t think this view stands up to Christian theology.

I’m not here to debate contraception… trust me, I’ve heard all the points you’ve made, and many more. I was simply asking for an answer to my OP - some advise on what step to take next, if any… assuming my adviser’s instruction wasn’t good enough.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No problem.

1. I don’t think non abortificient contraception is wrong. (as long as the couple is still open to bringing children into their marriage, and lovingly accept whatever child they do conceive)
2. I don’t think it’s wrong for husband and wife to sometimes bring each other to climax outside of intercourse. (as long as it doesn’t become a substitute for intercourse, I see nothing wrong with it happening on occasion).

The second one is something I can follow, though the first really effects my life and my marriage, and this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

Why do you think these actions are not wrong…and which Church document got it wrong?

If the Church is wrong about these things…how do i know that I receive Jesus in the Eucharist, and it isn’t just a nice symbol.

Could the Church be wrong about that too?

 

[thistle]

No problem.

1. I don’t think non abortificient contraception is wrong. (as long as the couple is still open to bringing children into their marriage, and lovingly accept whatever child they do conceive)
2. I don’t think it’s wrong for husband and wife to sometimes bring each other to climax outside of intercourse. (as long as it doesn’t become a substitute for intercourse, I see nothing wrong with it happening on occasion).

The second one is something I can follow, though the first really effects my life and my marriage, and this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

Conscience should be formed in accordance with Church teachings. If you reject Church teachings that is not only a mortal sin but it is tantamount to saying Christ lied/was wrong when he gave the Church authority to bind and loose. Church teachings have the full authority of Christ behind them. Rejecting Church teachings is rejecting Christ.

 

[Debora123]

Why do you think these actions are not wrong…and which Church document got it wrong?

If the Church is wrong about these things…how do i know that I receive Jesus in the Eucharist, and it isn’t just a nice symbol.

Could the Church be wrong about that too?

Well this is where this thought ran through my mind:

Sometimes I find myself even entertaining the idea of leaving the Church, only to catch myself and remind myself that of course, I would never do that.

It’s hard to reconcile with one thing being error because then you start to wonder “well if that’s wrong, then what else is??”

Though I do think there is a difference between a law and the truth regarding the Eucharist.

I’ll be sure to ask my priest about this on my next visit.

 

[Debora123]

Conscience should be formed in accordance with Church teachings. If you reject Church teachings that is not only a mortal sin but it is tantamount to saying Christ lied/was wrong when he gave the Church authority to bind and loose. Church teachings have the full authority of Christ behind them. Rejecting Church teachings is rejecting Christ.

I wouldn’t say “reject” is the right word, because that indicates that I have a choice in the matter.

My conscience wasn’t in accordance with it, whether I wanted it to be or not. That’s not rejection, that’s just fact. Of course, I could follow the teaching anyway and ignore my own judgement, but that wouldn’t change my conscience or the fact that I would still think those things aren’t wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I wouldn’t say “reject” is the right word, because that indicates that I have a choice in the matter.

My conscience wasn’t in accordance with it, whether I wanted it to be or not. That’s not rejection, that’s just fact. Of course, I could follow the teaching anyway and ignore my own judgement, but that wouldn’t change my conscience or the fact that I would still think those things aren’t wrong.

Read my first link.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I’m not here to debate contraception… trust me, I’ve heard all the points you’ve made, and many more. I was simply asking for an answer to my OP - some advise on what step to take next, if any… assuming my adviser’s instruction wasn’t good enough.

Well, I think you might actually know the answer to the question. The Church has pronounced the evil of contraception for reasons you know very well.

The advice given was not correct. The faithful are not allowed or enjoined by the Magisterium of the Church to make these decisions according to their consciences. Plenty of cafeteria Catholics already do this and the Church, has made its position quite clear on this tendency.

Will the Church break down your door and physically restrain you to enforce Church teaching? No, of course not. But know that you would not be choosing God’s (as delivered to the Church through the Holy Spirit) will if you assented to your conscience in this matter.

The teachings about sexuality are not popular. The Church doesn’t “tell you what you want to hear”, and that’s how you may come to know that the Catholic Church teaches this with only the purest intentions.

One reason the God of Abraham is so compelling is that He debunked the idea that humans necessarily invent religion that is sympathetic, convenient, and validating to their lifestyles…just read the Old Testament and you’ll realize just how inconvenient the Jews found the Mosaic Law to be. Scott Hahn said that if he was going to invent a religion on the spot, he probably would have invented something ‘more congenial to my whims.’

In [the Apostle] Paul’s view, immorality and unbelief are codependent dispositions. People must ignore or deny God if they want to do things that are objectively wrong … [and so Paul] treats atheism as a problem of the heart and will–a failure of nerve. People want their way, and atheism is the price [of doing so]…

. . . .

[Once in class, a student, John,] raised his hand and said, … “I think that if God didn’t exist, we’d invent Him anyway. And we did. What do you say to that?”

. . . .

• “You know what I say, John? I say, if God did exist, we’d invent atheism anyway. And we did. … I don’t know what you’re like, but I know what I’m like. And I know what God is like–at least the God I say I believe in. That God is infinite; and He’s all-wise, so He knows everything about me. He’s all good, too, and all rightous, and perfectly holy. And He commands me to be perfectly holy, too. Since He’s all-wise, he knows exactly when I’m not very holy or good, and He judges me based on what He knows. Oh, and He’s immutable, too, so He’ll never change. He’ll always be the way He is now; so He’ll always hold the same standards; and he’s always going to judge me by every idle word I utter … I have to admit, John, that that kind of God threatens my present state of existence and my lifestyle. If I were going to invent a god, I’d probably make one more congenial to my whims. And if I didn’t have the sense to invent him that way in the first place, I’d at least invent a god who could change his mind.”

. . . .

My student John was surely wrong, but it was his boldness that helped me understand the profound logic of St. Paul’s argument [in Romans]. If human beings had really tried to invent a god, [self-interest would ensure that] we would never have invented the God of Christianity.*
Conversely, I would argue that authentic religion challenges us to rise above base longings and urges.

A true friend, a true advocate will tell you the things you don’t want to hear.

I think if your conscience seems to contradict these teachings, you would not be here on CAF posing this question to us. I think, frankly, you’d have already acted on conscience, assuming this is truly at variance with your conscience.

Your issue seems a little more fundamental than you make it seem. We are all naturally concupiscent since the fall. Every Catholic occasionally struggles with wanting to transgress the Church’s teachings. It would be easier to be disobedient. It always is…but it is never as fulfilling.

 

[Debora123]

Read my first link.

I have read it, thank you.

Some of the things Father Toracco is saying seems to be a bit different from what my own priest has told me…

 

[ivebeenshown]

What should you do? IMO this is a non-issue. A well-formed conscience is one that assents to Church teaching.

 

[Leegal]

Formation of a moral conscience begins with an open mind toward the Church’s teachings. It’s a life-long study, not merely the assumption that the conscience is autonymous from the teachings of the Church.

I would suggest the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Formation of a Moral Conscience. I can give you my understanding of what I think this process is, but I think your next step is to study these sections of the Catechism.

Moral Conscience

As contraception is a de fide teaching I would only caution that denial of a de fide teaching carries with it an excommunication latae sententia.

I mention this because “been there; done that.” My issue was not yours, but the discovery of being excommunicated latae sententia caused me much more grief, on top of my regret for my sin. I then discovered that I could not even receive the sacrament of penance. Of course, diocesan priests can lift an excommunication latae sententia, and proceed with confession, but just knowing that I carried this additional burden caused me so much fear and inner turmoil.

I want you to avoid any possibility that you form your moral conscience and find out later, as I did, that you may be acting autonymously, and in error.

God Bless.

 

[John21652]

No problem.

1. I don’t think non abortificient contraception is wrong. (as long as the couple is still open to bringing children into their marriage, and lovingly accept whatever child they do conceive)

Isn’t there an inherent contradiction in what you’ve just written here Deborah?

You are effectively saying you’ll be open to life when it suits me.

That is a first step down that road of a mindset that devalues the morality the Church teaches. It wreaks of expediency. Slippery slope and all that…

1. I don’t think it’s wrong for husband and wife to sometimes bring each other to climax outside of intercourse. (as long as it doesn’t become a substitute for intercourse, I see nothing wrong with it happening on occasion).

On purpose? Well then it is a substitute for intercourse. If it’s an accident, you know, all happens too fast, that’s one thing. However, to make it the deliberate end of your actions is another step down that road.

The second one is something I can follow, though the first really effects my life and my marriage, and this is mainly what I’ve talked to my adviser about and have decided to follow my conscience.

Not sure how or why the first really affects your life and marriage. Openess to life can’t be something that is contingent, or expedient, or else it is compromised.

 

[Debora123]

Isn’t there an inherent contradiction in what you’ve just written here Deborah?

You are effectively saying you’ll be open to life when it suits me.

I’m not sure about the way you’ve worded it, but to be more clear, I am basically saying that I will be open to having children in my marriage, and I will have those children when I no longer have just reasons to avoid. Only difference is I don’t think that periodic abstinence is the only licit way to avoid, that’s all. But of course, if I am to get pregnant “by accident” then I will certainly openly welcome that child into my life. If you think any of what I’ve said here is a contradiction then I am sorry but I disagree I guess.

That is a first step down that road of a mindset that devalues the morality the Church teaches. It wreaks of expediency. Slippery slope and all that…

Not sure what you mean by this. But I do hope I don’t get condemned/lectured for being open and honest about my struggles. I was looking more in terms of advice.

On purpose? Well then it is a substitute for intercourse. If it’s an accident, you know, all happens too fast, that’s one thing. However, to make it the deliberate end of your actions is another step down that road.

No, not a “substitute” for intercourse. I believe a married couple must still have intercourse, but I don’t believe it to be wrong for them to climax in other ways from time to time.

Not sure how or why the first really affects your life and marriage. Openess to life can’t be something that is contingent, or expedient, or else it is compromised.

Sigh

Perhaps it was bad judgement on my part to actually be open regarding what exactly I disagree with, if people are just going to try to argue with me rather than give me advice…

 

[Debora123]

Formation of a moral conscience begins with an open mind toward the Church’s teachings. It’s a life-long study, not merely the assumption that the conscience is autonymous from the teachings of the Church.

I would suggest the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Formation of a Moral Conscience. I can give you my understanding of what I think this process is, but I think your next step is to study these sections of the Catechism.

Moral Conscience

As contraception is a de fide teaching I would only caution that denial of a de fide teaching carries with it an excommunication latae sententia.

I mention this because “been there; done that.” My issue was not yours, but the discovery of being excommunicated latae sententia caused me much more grief, on top of my regret for my sin. I then discovered that I could not even receive the sacrament of penance. Of course, diocesan priests can lift an excommunication latae sententia, and proceed with confession, but just knowing that I carried this additional burden caused me so much fear and inner turmoil.

I want you to avoid any possibility that you form your moral conscience and find out later, as I did, that you may be acting autonymously, and in error.

God Bless.

Thank you. I have read that section of the catechism, but perhaps you are correct in using the key word “study.”

It is hard to exactly follow the whole thing, and it seems like it leaves some room for interpretation, though I suppose it would become more clear if I looked through it more closely and thought about it more carefully.