Your "conscience" versus Church teaching

[JRKH]

We seem to be working from different defnitions of “good”

That was no “fully justified and sound conclusion.” It wasn’t even a conclusion! James opened his post by saying essentially “the Church says so”, a statement you’ve been dismissing for 3 days now. In fact, what you’re happy about is that James doesn’t say for sure what he’d do.

James, you’re a good man, and I have every confidence that the Lord with guide you properly. I’m not ragging on you, just saying that your post doesn’t really give a conclusion that hasn’t been given before.

Back to the post…ALL suffering is redemptive, and it doesn’t matter whether it is physical or metal, emotional, or spiritual. This is the good that suffering produces. Frankly, I can’t think of a single direct worldly good that suffering produces. It’s all redemptive, salvific, purgative.

The post you refer to was my attempt to place the discusion in the overall context of the ideal vs reality. We all know that life can become quite messy. I was glad that Chaz got some good from it and hope others gain a better perspective as well. Having said that it remains, as always, one persons take on the subject.

I would like to explore briefly the statement, “ALL suffering is redemptive…”
While I won’t dispute this statement it does raise certain questions. For instance, if suffering is redemptive why is “Palative” care, that is care to make one comfortable and alleviate pain and suffering acceptable. Doesn’t that negate, to some degree, the redemptive value of the suffering God has sent to a person? Are we not interfering with God’s desire to purify this person in this life through suffering?
Understand here, I am not arguing for total non-intervention, but simply posing the question/premise that, if ending a life is wrong based on the idea of redemptive suffering, then ANY intervention in that suffering could be viewed as equally wrong for it interferes with God’s plan for that person.

The realm of “end of life” issues, is full of pitfalls and and minefields like this. The best any of us can do is to try to understand the Church’s teachings on the matter, Pray hard to our Lord for guidance, Love and care for our Loved one as best we know how and then follow our conscience.

I speak as one who has watched my father slowly die of Alzheimers and am now caring for my beautiful wife, afflicted with the same horrible disease. I pray that God will guide me to do what is best for my lady, in accordance with His Will as He gives me the grace to see that Will.

Peace
James

 

[Janet_S]

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?

Yes, I think you’re right about this phenomenon. Except I don’t think it’s so much a response to Vatican II as it is a response to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul’s 1968 Encyclical upholding the Church’s constant teaching against artificial birth control. That’s really when Catholics began playing the “conscience” card, so to speak. There was massive dissent of Catholic theologians (headed by Charles Curran) at this time, and the Catholic world has not been the same since.

There’s an excellent article, “The Inconvenient Conscience” by George Cardinal Pell. You can find it here:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

Like Cardinal Pell says in his article, the conscience loophole is used exclusively for issues of sexual morality (birth control, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc.). You never hear of Catholics who use “conscience” as a reason to justify racism or sexism for example. Take a look at the Catholic publication “Conscience” put out by Catholics for Choice. These are the typical Catholics for whom conscience is their battle cry:

catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/default.asp

The notion of the importance of conscience is and always has been an important aspect of Catholic teaching. It’s just that the common understanding about conscience among most Catholics has become distorted. Conscience must be ordered by the idea that there is truth, that there is a lawgiver, and that we individuals are neither the author of truth nor the lawgiver. Many people mistake conscience as a license to do pretty much whatever they want to do. This is not authentic Catholic teaching. A sin is still a sin, and if one takes little time to form his conscience according to Catholic teaching, he is still culpable for the sins he commits.

Joe already mentioned this, but Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, clears up much of the confusion about the Church’s teachings on conscience.

 

[Janet_S]

I also recommend Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae, especially for what he teaches about health care and end of life issues.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[VociMike]

God gave us brains and a conscience.

I think we have a moral obligation to consider that the church teachings are not always correct. After all, the church is run by humans.

If we were to go back in time, the church taught to burn “witches” at the stake. In the 1500’s for example, you could purchase indulgences in sin from the church. In the 1600’s, it was illegal to determine anything contrary to the sacred scriptures, specifically that the Earth revolves around the sun.

I would trust your conscience over church teachings. At the end of the day, your decisions will be between you and God.

Do you have 21st century examples of Church teaching that are equivalent to burning witches and the sun revolves around the earth?

 

[Spirithound]

The post you refer to was my attempt to place the discusion in the overall context of the ideal vs reality. We all know that life can become quite messy. I was glad that Chaz got some good from it and hope others gain a better perspective as well. Having said that it remains, as always, one persons take on the subject.

I would like to explore briefly the statement, “ALL suffering is redemptive…”
While I won’t dispute this statement it does raise certain questions. For instance, if suffering is redemptive why is “Palliative” care, that is care to make one comfortable and alleviate pain and suffering acceptable. Doesn’t that negate, to some degree, the redemptive value of the suffering God has sent to a person? Are we not interfering with God’s desire to purify this person in this life through suffering?
Understand here, I am not arguing for total non-intervention, but simply posing the question/premise that, if ending a life is wrong based on the idea of redemptive suffering, then ANY intervention in that suffering could be viewed as equally wrong for it interferes with God’s plan for that person.

I do believe that were a person to forgo morphine and such, and offer their sufferings up to the Lord, that suffering would be of a redemptive value. So why should we intervene in any case with painkillers? Because not all are called to suffer. Not all are properly disposed to offer up their sufferings. Perhaps I should amend my previous statement to "All suffering can be redemptive, salvific, purgative. One must offer it up, according to their level of intellect and will, for it to be effective. Does the suffering of a person in mortal sin have salvific value? It seems to me, no, except that it might inspire them to make reconciliation with God.

Further, it is a corporal act of mercy to comfort the afflicted (which I’m sure also carries redemptive value). To the extent that I don’t have a medical degree, my comfort of others may extend to praying with them and encouraging them to offer up their pain. Their doctor or nurse, on the other hand, would be qualified to give them some painkillers (for physical pain only ), or antidepressants. But what separates morphine from a bullet? Really, do I have to answer that? They are different means to (I argue) different ends.

Regarding God’s Will that a person be sanctified through suffering. Here I want to distinguish between God’s positive will, and His permissive will. The positive will is what God actively wills, for example, God willed that His Son come to earth. His permissive will is that which allows stuff to happen. For example, Judas betraying Jesus. So, I don’t believe that God positively wills anybody to be sanctified through suffering. He does want us to be sanctified though! Suffering then becomes one of many states of life for which the by-product is sanctification.

So, back to bullet versus morphine. My argument against the bullet is not because it prevents redemptive suffering. I feel that would be kinda like putting the carriage before the horse. Suffering is not inherently redemptive (ie, Hell), but rather redemption can be wrought from it. If a person is properly disposed to be sanctified, he will be, whether it’s here or Purgatory. My argument is for the dignity of human life.

I speak as one who has watched my father slowly die of Alzheimers and am now caring for my beautiful wife, afflicted with the same horrible disease. I pray that God will guide me to do what is best for my lady, in accordance with His Will as He gives me the grace to see that Will.

May God bless you and your family abundantly

 

[JRKH]

I do believe that were a person to forgo morphine and such, and offer their sufferings up to the Lord, that suffering would be of a redemptive value. So why should we intervene in any case with painkillers? Because not all are called to suffer. Not all are properly disposed to offer up their sufferings. Perhaps I should amend my previous statement to "All suffering can be redemptive, salvific, purgative. One must offer it up, according to their level of intellect and will, for it to be effective. Does the suffering of a person in mortal sin have salvific value? It seems to me, no, except that it might inspire them to make reconciliation with God.

Further, it is a corporal act of mercy to comfort the afflicted (which I’m sure also carries redemptive value). To the extent that I don’t have a medical degree, my comfort of others may extend to praying with them and encouraging them to offer up their pain. Their doctor or nurse, on the other hand, would be qualified to give them some painkillers (for physical pain only ), or antidepressants. But what separates morphine from a bullet? Really, do I have to answer that? They are different means to (I argue) different ends.

Regarding God’s Will that a person be sanctified through suffering. Here I want to distinguish between God’s positive will, and His permissive will. The positive will is what God actively wills, for example, God willed that His Son come to earth. His permissive will is that which allows stuff to happen. For example, Judas betraying Jesus. So, I don’t believe that God positively wills anybody to be sanctified through suffering. He does want us to be sanctified though! Suffering then becomes one of many states of life for which the by-product is sanctification.

So, back to bullet versus morphine. My argument against the bullet is not because it prevents redemptive suffering. I feel that would be kinda like putting the carriage before the horse. Suffering is not inherently redemptive (ie, Hell), but rather redemption can be wrought from it. If a person is properly disposed to be sanctified, he will be, whether it’s here or Purgatory. My argument is for the dignity of human life.

May God bless you and your family abundantly

Very nice post. I particularly like the reference to God’s Active and Permissive Will. It puts much in perspective.
I did not intend to equate “the bullet to morphine”, just bring up the idea that there are many aspects to properly judging what is or is not in concert with the Will of our Father. The “Bullet” issue was originally brought up in a very specific and extreme case which, one cannot really relate to since there would obviously be a huge amount of emotional upheaval involved (i.e. being in a war zone), so I am going to avoid any further comment on that.

As to the various end of life issues we might face in our normal lives, our best bet is to:

1. Talk to our Loved Ones, especially spouses and children, so we know their wishes and they know ours.
2. Talk to our priest, confessor, or spiritual councilor if we have one
3. Pray for God’s will to be done and for the courage, and grace we need in the particular situation.
4. Fold all of the above into our lives and our legal preparations (Living wills, DPOA etc.).
5. When the time comes, make the decision that you are most comfortable with. If you are at peace with a decision based on the items above, then you can be assured that you are acting with God and not in defiance of Him.

Peace
James