Your "conscience" versus Church teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter jujubee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jujubee

Guest
This came up in a conversation with another Catholic at my new parish in the context of the whole birth control issue.

She tried to tell me that even though the Church teaches against birth control that if my conscience tells me otherwise then it is perfectly ok to use birth control.

I know that’s nonsense.

What I would like to hear about is where so many Catholics get this idea. They seem to think it is still a Catholic thing even when it is in conflict with the Church. I don’t get their thinking. Either the Church teaches it, and it is therefore Catholic. Or the Church doesn’t teach it and it is therefore not. Protestant at best.

I’m hoping I can have fruitful discussions with this woman in the future. But before I do, I need to get a better perspective of how, when, and where this rationalization comes from. What is she misinterpretting?

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks,
Julie
 
Primacy of conscience basically says do it if your conscience says its OK. Obviously this is devoid of absolute truth.

What is needed is a properly and fully informed conscience not a conscience of convenience.
 
Some priests are confused, some priests don’t want to offend parishioners, and a few are too liberal. From 1970 to date, I’ve watched fellow Catholics slowly begin to imitate the world. The so-called “sexual revolution” of the late 1960s is still influencing people today. Why? Because when the Hippies really began making noise, Catholics were fooled, even nuns, over what they thought was a partly worthwhile change. The media supported it. This was immediately followed by the nationwide establishment of so-called Adult Bookstores selling Porn.

Then Catholics watched as their fellow Catholics began to divorce, a lot. Began shacking up. Stopped going to Church. Actions speak louder than words. Then, too many Catholics, after one too many divorces, or abortion or some other sexual sin, began to feel isolated from the Church. They either are afraid to go back or don’t know how to deal with “modern” life.

God bless,
Ed
 
This came up in a conversation with another Catholic at my new parish in the context of the whole birth control issue.

She tried to tell me that even though the Church teaches against birth control that if my conscience tells me otherwise then it is perfectly ok to use birth control.

I know that’s nonsense.

What I would like to hear about is where so many Catholics get this idea. They seem to think it is still a Catholic thing even when it is in conflict with the Church. I don’t get their thinking. Either the Church teaches it, and it is therefore Catholic. Or the Church doesn’t teach it and it is therefore not. Protestant at best.

I’m hoping I can have fruitful discussions with this woman in the future. But before I do, I need to get a better perspective of how, when, and where this rationalization comes from. What is she misinterpretting?

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks,
Julie
If your conscience tells you otherwise, or against Church teaching, you have a poorly formed conscience.

She needs to look around and notice that there are few people left in the cafeteria, because it closed two years ago!
 
This came up in a conversation with another Catholic at my new parish in the context of the whole birth control issue.

She tried to tell me that even though the Church teaches against birth control that if my conscience tells me otherwise then it is perfectly ok to use birth control.

I know that’s nonsense.

What I would like to hear about is where so many Catholics get this idea. They seem to think it is still a Catholic thing even when it is in conflict with the Church. I don’t get their thinking. Either the Church teaches it, and it is therefore Catholic. Or the Church doesn’t teach it and it is therefore not. Protestant at best.

I’m hoping I can have fruitful discussions with this woman in the future. But before I do, I need to get a better perspective of how, when, and where this rationalization comes from. What is she misinterpretting?

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks,
Julie
Too many people are not aware of sin. Too many people are “at peace” with their decisions because they can go on without feeling guilty about something they know is wrong.
 
MORAL CONSCIENCE

CCC 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE

CCC 1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

CCC 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

CCC 1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.

CCC 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

CCC 1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

CCC 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

CCC 1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

CCC 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

CCC 1786 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.

CCC 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

CCC 1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

CCC 1789 Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

CCC 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.

CCC 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.

CCC 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.

CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

CCC 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.
 
They have been slowly spiritually poisoned. There are still strong Catholics who follow their faith, but we are all surrounded by really bad examples of people behaving really badly on TV, at the movies, on the radio, in public. Really badly. There are few celebrities I would consider role models in any sense of the word. Hollywood is nothing but divorce city, and it produces increasingly dysfunctional programming every year.

In 1968, a serial killer as the lovable guy next door would have been inconceivable, but now you can buy Season One at Best Buy.

I encourage my fellow Catholics to pick up Catholic newspapers and magazines. Listen to Catholic radio. Seek God again, He is waiting for you.

God bless,
Ed
 
You may study and pray till your hearts content and still at the end of the day say, I just don’t see how it’s wrong. In your very next breath you must say, The church that Christ founded says it’s wrong , so it must be wrong. Even if I don’;t get it.
 
This will not help directly but there was an article posted today on Catholic teaching regarding conscience (Part I of a multipart series)

WITH GOOD REASON
What exactly is your conscience? Fr. Berg gives an explanation and clears away some misconceptions.
catholicnewsagency.com/columns.php?sub_id=12
 
Br Rich put it most succintly and someone else posted p art of the Catechism so the basics are here.

The Catechism teaches the primacy of conscience, but with that proviso that the conscience be well formed.
In the case where someone disagrees with the Church on a matter of faith and morals, it is up to the individual to properly form their conscience in the matter. That would mean reading and studying on the issue to truly understand the reasons for the Church’s position on the subject.

I suppose that if, after an exhaustive effort to understand a position, a person still felt bound by their conscience to go against the teaching then they must follow their conscience.

The question is, how many people make the effort to understand a decision, to properly form their conscience. Most simply decide to ignore/defy the teaching.

Peace
James
 
That is absolute garbage. The Church processes the FULL truth in matters of faith and morals. Therefore you have a responsibility to form to conscience according to Church teaching.

If your conscience is in conflict with Church teaching it means you have formed it poorly.
 
Br Rich put it most succinctly and someone else posted p art of the Catechism so the basics are here.

The Catechism teaches the primacy of conscience, but with that proviso that the conscience be well formed.
In the case where someone disagrees with the Church on a matter of faith and morals, it is up to the individual to properly form their conscience in the matter. That would mean reading and studying on the issue to truly understand the reasons for the Church’s position on the subject.

I suppose that if, after an exhaustive effort to understand a position, a person still felt bound by their conscience to go against the teaching then they must follow their conscience.

The question is, how many people make the effort to understand a decision, to properly form their conscience. Most simply decide to ignore/defy the teaching.
ABC is one of those issues that doesn’t just pop up on you. And if it does, you’re not married, and you shouldn’t be engaging in that activity anyways. So you definitely have time to go and search for the Church’s answer. And guess what? It’s a common topic, so you’re going to find the answer real quick!!

James, I don’t know whether you were commenting on the topic at hand when you said that if a person still felt bound by their conscience, they must follow it, but I strongly disagree. That may be permissible if it’s a case of something like helping an injured puppy or getting to work on time, but on ABC, the Church is very clear, and when the Church says something authoritatively and you disagree with it, you better do some soul-searching and see what your favourite sin is doing to your life.
 
Ah, so thank you for those CCC quotes. There are a few key elements in them, as expressed by other posters here, that seem to be looked over… such as forming your conscience. If a well formed conscience can hear God’s voice, and God’s voice also speaks through His Church, they should be saying the same thing.

Since I was born just after Vatican II, would it be true to say that this phenomena of conscience v. church teaching has developed mostly in this post Vatican II culture? I don’t see in history how this was really an issue any time before that. And I don’t see any other hot button issues for the times before this where this same argument was made. Is that right?
 
ABC is one of those issues that doesn’t just pop up on you. And if it does, you’re not married, and you shouldn’t be engaging in that activity anyways. So you definitely have time to go and search for the Church’s answer. And guess what? It’s a common topic, so you’re going to find the answer real quick!!

James, I don’t know whether you were commenting on the topic at hand when you said that if a person still felt bound by their conscience, they must follow it, but I strongly disagree. That may be permissible if it’s a case of something like helping an injured puppy or getting to work on time, but on ABC, the Church is very clear, and when the Church says something authoritatively and you disagree with it, you better do some soul-searching and see what your favourite sin is doing to your life.
I was trying to comment on the overall issue of conscience v teaching. The Catachism is very Clear on the criticality of the well formed conscience. However a “well formed” conscience involves a deal more than simply knowing and obeying Church teaching. It also involves having an understanding the why’s of the teachings for there may be those occasions where a violation of the letter of a teaching is necessary for some greater good.

Look at it this way, Jesus taught against mindless obedience to “The Law” and thus being enslaved by it. That is why He gave us the single commandment of Love. The Church provides us with a great wealth of teaching (Law). These are all good for guidance and discipline which is necessary if we are to grow in our Faith and Love of God.
As a person matures spiritually, the Church recognizes the ability of a Free and well formed Child in Christ to make moral judgements based upon an understanding of “The Law” filtered and governed by the “Law of Love”. As a general rule, one should default to obedience to the teaching of the Church until they are sufficiently mature spiritually (well formed) to understand the difference between an informed, “well formed” decision made in the Love of God, and a decision that is driven by worldly desires.

As to the specific case of ABC, I cannot think of any viable reason by which a person could, in well formed and good conscience, think that ABC would be acceptable.

Peace
James
 
This came up in a conversation with another Catholic at my new parish in the context of the whole birth control issue.

She tried to tell me that even though the Church teaches against birth control that if my conscience tells me otherwise then it is perfectly ok to use birth control.

I know that’s nonsense.

What I would like to hear about is where so many Catholics get this idea. They seem to think it is still a Catholic thing even when it is in conflict with the Church. I don’t get their thinking. Either the Church teaches it, and it is therefore Catholic. Or the Church doesn’t teach it and it is therefore not. Protestant at best.

I’m hoping I can have fruitful discussions with this woman in the future. But before I do, I need to get a better perspective of how, when, and where this rationalization comes from. What is she misinterpretting?

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks,
Julie
As a thought experiment: If RCC said it was wrong for you to have more than one child, and you honestly couldn’t understand, or bring yourself to agree with this - what would you do?

…If you felt it was A-ok to have more than one, and you didn’t really buy the explaination that they gave you…would you still limit yourself to just one?
 
As a thought experiment: If RCC said it was wrong for you to have more than one child, and you honestly couldn’t understand, or bring yourself to agree with this - what would you do?
…If you felt it was A-ok to have more than one, and you didn’t really buy the explaination that they gave you…would you still limit yourself to just one?
Now this post is to me **an example of how people ‘get it wrong’ **about just what is meant by “the teachings of the Catholic Church”.

The whole point of the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals (and yes, this situation involving reproduction would indeed fall under matters of faith and morals) is that it is infallible.

First, right off, the idea that the Church would suddenly impose a ‘restriction to one child policy’ is an absolute, total ‘about-face’ from its teachings of the past 2000 years.

The Church doesn’t do that.

Dogma and doctrine can deepen in understanding, but cannot change. One does not go from saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God to saying that, well, the gospel writers were just trying to make a ‘point’ of showing our ‘sonship’ to God and that Jesus really wasn’t God’s son after all.

Likewise, to go from stating that all sexual actions in the marital union must be ‘open to life’ (though it is morally licit to use the natural ‘rhythms’ of the body to ‘space’ births or to deal with grave medical issues because there is still always a ‘chance’ of fertility in such cases, thus being ‘open to life’) to stating that absolutely, without fail, only ‘one’ pregnancy carried to term is ‘permitted’ by ‘law’ for a Catholic would be an example of totally contradicting previous teaching.

Unlike a change in discipline (married priests or celibate priests) in which a change may be made to externals (whether or not the priest is married or single, he is still male) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a particular time period, a change in doctrine whereby ‘one child only’ was touted as ‘legitimate change’ due to reasons of overpopulation, say (though many nations are now at ‘less than ZPG’ and are beginning to experience the difficulties thereof, and studies have shown that we are by no means incapable of supporting a population in the world far exceeding the current 6-7 billion) changes the internals–the whole relationship of marital intimacy. Thus, it would be wrong. . .just as wrong as to claim that women can become priests. They cannot–the ‘internal’ factor of being female invalidates them for the priestly ROLE though it in no way makes them inferior in PERSON to a given male.

I encourage you, thomfra, to give further ‘thought’ to coming up with an example which conforms with actual Church teaching instead of raising a strawman.
 
As a thought experiment: If RCC said it was wrong for you to have more than one child, and you honestly couldn’t understand, or bring yourself to agree with this - what would you do?

…If you felt it was A-ok to have more than one, and you didn’t really buy the explaination that they gave you…would you still limit yourself to just one?
That’s not a good example as the Church will never do that.

However, a person’s conscience must be formed in accordance with Church teaching.
 
That’s not a good example as the Church will never do that.

However, a person’s conscience must be formed in accordance with Church teaching.
It’s not an example. It’s a thought experiment.

I don’t think you can really have a conscience which is “according to the church”. It just seems like a contradictory statement. Your conscience is your own, and it is what it is based on your thoughts and experiences.

It just seems to easy to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with something in the church “doesn’t have a properly formed conscience”.
 
I don’t think you can really have a conscience which is “according to the church”. It just seems like a contradictory statement. Your conscience is your own, and it is what it is based on your thoughts and experiences.
Lots of things seem contradictory but aren’t on closer, contextual inspection.

I, for example, support every single solitary teaching of the Catholic Church–without exception. Did I have ‘difficulties’ over the years with some teachings? Of course I did. Did I fail at times? Yes I did–and I acknowledged that failing, and kept on trying until I finally ‘got it.’

My ‘thoughts and experiences’ invariably and without fail led me, after prolonged thought, questioning, and reasoning, to realize that the positions of the Church were, and are, absolutely true.

Even if I had not recognized the truth, the truth would still be true. And that is what many seem blind to–the idea that truth can be an absolute truth and not ‘true according to my thoughts and experiences’ or ‘true in this degree but not that degree’ etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top