Conscience Vs Church

[Lord Philip]

Conscience is not a singular, stand-alone entity. Conscience, of its own nature, consults antecedant belief. For instance, our conscience might trouble us about being mean to someone, but only because of the belief in us that being mean to someone is wrong.

Next step: our beliefs are to be formed by receiving the Word of God as preached by the Church. If our beliefs are not in accord with God's commands, then something is wrong. Our consciences should be pricked at this stage: God says something and we don't believe it.

Submit to Holy Mother Church. Case closed. Conscience is not even an issue at this level.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1715646' date='Dec 1 2008, 01:13 AM']Ya the only reason I go to confesion is when mortal sin is involved. If I can just tell God im sorry on my knees im all for that. 100 percent all for that. But like missing mass is a mortal sin that I commit. I know there is no excuse but I do so ya. And Ive read here repeatedly that masturbation is a mortal sin. So that really ties right into what mortify was talking about. In my mind I dont really feel like im commiting a mortal sin yet the church teaches that I am. I mean I do my best not to have sexual realtions with females( again im celibet and proud of it), I cant help though that I have the desire for sex or masturbation . Again im sorry if this sounds gross or whatever but im being honest. And I find it really troubling that I have to go tell a grown man that im sorry for masturbating ( a mortal sin) before I can recieve communion. Even though after talking to the priest he tells me it isnt a mortal sin.[/quote]

Hi. I just want to stray off topic a little bit to encourage you to seek Confession even if you only have committed venial sins! Going to Confession for a mortal sin is like approaching a shower after a mud bath, whereas going to Confession for a venial sin is like approaching the sink after you got your hands dirty. If you keep adding up the venial sin, sooner or later the dirt will get harder to scrub off and it will get beneath your fingernails. It does not cut us from God's grace but it does weaken us and, if not confessed frequently enough, can become a habit (road rage) which gets even harder to get rid of. I just found this in the Catechism, 1876: "The repetition of sins - even venial ones - engender vices, among which are the capital sins." So as you can see, venial sins, added up, make us more susceptible to fall into mortal sin if we are faced with the temptation.

And yes, masturbation is a mortal sin. Check the Catechism!

Back on topic -

I voted that the Church comes before my conscience and I am glad to see that everyone else who voted, voted the same! Because this is how it should be. Just remember that Jesus established the Church so in reality we are following Christ. Christ will never speak against the Church so if we have any thoughts against the Church, this is either coming from ourselves (maybe our own confusion, uncertainty, misunderstanding, or even hostility) or from the Devil.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1715476' date='Nov 30 2008, 11:25 PM']If one's conscience tells him to do something which the Church believes and teaches to be gravely sinful, that person's conscience is malformed.[/quote]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1715490' date='Nov 30 2008, 11:30 PM']+J.M.J.+
your second option should be: Follow Church teaching, since their conscience is [b]ill-formed[/b]. and that's what my opinion would be.[/quote]

I disagree. Their conscience would be [i]uninformed[/i]. "Malformed" sounds a little, well, malformed.

[quote name='mortify' post='1715494' date='Nov 30 2008, 11:33 PM']I said the conscience would be "informed" because the person knows what the Church teaches.[/quote]

By that definition, do Biden, Pelosi, and Kennedy also share an informed conscience? All that's necessary to clear my conscience is for me to be aware of Church teaching? This is good news... now I get to be unchaste, as long as I know it's wrong.

Now, a little food for thought:

[quote]A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. -Catechism, 1783[/quote]

However,

[quote]In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. -Catechism, 1778[/quote]

And then we have this little paragraph that doesn't sit so well with how 15 people (including myself) voted in this poll:

[quote]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. -Catechism, 1790[/quote]

So, how 'bout them apples?

Edited December 1, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[philothea]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1715882' date='Dec 1 2008, 02:11 PM']And then we have this little paragraph that doesn't sit so well with how 15 people (including myself) voted in this poll:

[quote]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. -Catechism, 1790[/quote]


So, how 'bout them apples?
[/quote]
That was why I asked for clarification. It makes perfect sense.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1715861' date='Dec 1 2008, 02:03 PM']Conscience is not a singular, stand-alone entity. Conscience, of its own nature, consults antecedant belief. For instance, our conscience might trouble us about being mean to someone, but only because of the belief in us that being mean to someone is wrong.

Next step: our beliefs are to be formed by receiving the Word of God as preached by the Church. If our beliefs are not in accord with God's commands, then something is wrong. Our consciences should be pricked at this stage: God says something and we don't believe it.

Submit to Holy Mother Church. Case closed. Conscience is not even an issue at this level.[/quote]
True.
"Conscience" is a much misunderstood and much much abused word in modern times.
One's conscience is simply one's knowledge of what is right and wrong.
We all have a duty to properly [i]inform[/i] our conscience as best as we are able.
For a Catholic, this means submitting to the moral teachings of Holy Mother Church.
If one knows the Church to be the Church founded by Jesus Christ and entrusted with His teaching authority, he is bound by conscience to obey the Church's moral precepts.
If he goes against what he knows to be the Church's teaching, he is not in reality following his conscience at all.
A conscience ill-formed by sloth (being too lazy to learn the Church's teachings) or pride (thinking one knows better than the Church) is no excuse come judgment day.

Unfortunately, "conscience," as the word is usually misused by your typical liberal "pro-choice" contracepting, Obama-voting "Catholic," means little more than "whatever the heck I wanna do."

Edited December 2, 2008 by Socrates

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1715882' date='Dec 1 2008, 03:11 PM']By that definition, do Biden, Pelosi, and Kennedy also share an informed conscience? All that's necessary to clear my conscience is for me to be aware of Church teaching? This is good news... now I get to be unchaste, as long as I know it's wrong.[/quote]

I'm probably not using this phrase in exactly the right way however, if someone's conscience tells them something is ok, and then they discover the Church teaches it's a mortal sin, that person's conscience would be "informed" even if they still feel it's ok. I'm presuming some [b]time[/b] is required to mold their conscience accordingly.

I'm not quite sure why you thought this would clear a person of sin.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1715882' date='Dec 1 2008, 03:11 PM'][quote]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. -Catechism, 1790[/quote]

So, how 'bout them apples?
[/quote]

I don't really see a problem if we understand conscience to include knowledge of right and wrong.

A person can only act according to what they *know.*

Obviously, if they're ignorant about what's right and wrong they can come to erroneous moral conclusions, but their *ignorance* also makes them innocent of deliberate mortal sin.

If on the other hand someone is *aware* that something is wrong, they can't say their conscience tells them it's ok. Or can they?.....

[Aloysius]

part of the well-formed conscience is a belief that the Church's moral teaching is right. if the person does not have this as part of their conscience (and thus, though they might think or feel something to be right, the Church saying it is wrong stirs their conscience to say it must be wrong and thus not do it), then they are in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

it is always a sin to contradict your conscience, even your badly formed conscience.
but if you do something evil even though your conscience says it's okay, that doesn't mean your act was good. it was still evil, and depending on how culpable you are for your conscience being poorly formed, you may even still be largely culpable for the sin.

the proper response for a person in this situation is to say "though I feel and think this action to be right, I believe the Church to be wiser than I am and therefore hold it to be wrong"... in that simple formulation you have not disobeyed your conscience, as the thought that the Church must be right and you must be wrong IS part of your conscience.

[Ziggamafu]

Depends on what the OP means to say. If it means to say exactly what it says "the conscience is [merely] 'okay' with the error" then there is still an obligation to follow Church teaching. If, however, the errant conscience OBLIGATES toward the error (as in, the conscience [i]sincerely demands[/i] it of the person) than the obligation of the errant conscience is free of sin, although it is still in error.

Conscience trumps everything in whatever it [i]sincerely obligates[/i] - even if it obligates a person to an error. This does not make the error "right" but it does make the error free from sin. If a person's conscience sincerely obligates him to kill someone, then that person is probably insane and could not therefore commit a mortal sin by killing the guy in the first place (true mental sickness precludes either full awareness or full consent).

Now: is the person sinning when he fails to live up to the obligations of his errant conscience? Only if he does not know that the Church teaches his conscience is in error. If the guy does not know Church teaching, then yes, he has an obligation to follow his errant conscience, precisely because he has no idea that his conscience is in error. If the guy knows that his conscience's obligation is in error, then he is not obligated to follow his conscience, but would nevertheless incur no sin in doing so.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Ziggamafu

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='philothea' post='1716013' date='Dec 1 2008, 07:04 PM']That was why I asked for clarification. It makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I think the basic idea behind the Church teaching that we must obey our conscience is the protection of our free will. Of course, we don't want to lose the context of any particular teaching on conscience, because either extreme (ignore your conscience and submit to the Church, or exhalt your conscience above the Church) is clearly wrong.

[quote name='mortify' post='1716430' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:05 AM']I'm probably not using this phrase in exactly the right way however, if someone's conscience tells them something is ok, and then they discover the Church teaches it's a mortal sin, that person's conscience would be "informed" even if they still feel it's ok. I'm presuming some [b]time[/b] is required to mold their conscience accordingly.

I'm not quite sure why you thought this would clear a person of sin.[/quote]

I'd say their brain is informed, but the conscience takes more time. I don't understand conscience as something you can just straight inform with book knowledge. The information is just one factor of several that contributes to a well-formed conscience, which is the goal. A twisted conscience can rationalize anything, whether is skipping Sunday Mass or tithing a little less, but a well-formed conscience will incline us to obedience even where it is not necessarily informed. Which leads to your other post...

[quote name='mortify' post='1716431' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:13 AM']I don't really see a problem if we understand conscience to include knowledge of right and wrong.

A person can only act according to what they *know.*

Obviously, if they're ignorant about what's right and wrong they can come to erroneous moral conclusions, but their *ignorance* also makes them innocent of deliberate mortal sin.

If on the other hand someone is *aware* that something is wrong, they can't say their conscience tells them it's ok. Or can they?.....[/quote]

I'd have to ask if conscience really includes knowledge. I think the two are separate, but they do affect each other. For example, a holy person may never be taught anything (or receive poor teaching) about tithing or sexuality, but if they invest the effort through Scripture and prayer to nurture a strong relationship with God and form their conscience, of course they'll naturally desire to honor God by giving of their time, talent, and treasure and they'll sense the sacredness of their sexuality and offer it up to God through life-giving chastity. The teaching on these things are good and need to be offered, but more important is building a relationship with God because that will always satisfy while our catechetical knowledge will always be lacking in some way. Otherwise, the seed of these teachings falls on rocky soil and fails to take root in hearts that are open and receptive to it.

[mortify]

[b][color="#0000FF"][u]CCC 1792[/u] Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of [color="#FF0000"]autonomy of conscience[/color], 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.[/color][/b]

This is something I'm still trying to understand, but it seems the popular notion of conscience treats it as if it were autonomous.

Edited December 2, 2008 by mortify

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1716594' date='Dec 2 2008, 01:56 PM']I think the basic idea behind the Church teaching that we must obey our conscience is the protection of our free will. Of course, we don't want to lose the context of any particular teaching on conscience, because either extreme (ignore your conscience and submit to the Church, or exhalt your conscience above the Church) is clearly wrong.[/quote]

So what if someone says their conscience disagrees with the Church's teaching on contraception?

[mortify]

Btw...

Am I the only who feels a strong case for moral relativism can be made using conscience as a foundation?

Edited December 2, 2008 by mortify

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='mortify' post='1716678' date='Dec 2 2008, 03:35 PM']So what if someone says their conscience disagrees with the Church's teaching on contraception?[/quote]

Well first I would question their conscience. Being closed to life is selfish as you are only seeking your pleasure (and perhaps that of your partner's) - the Church teaches this but you can arrive at this conclusion just by using your common sense. I would need to know why the person is trying to justify contraception since contraception is contrary to what the Church stands for. Is there a selfless way to justify it? I don't think so.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='mortify' post='1716715' date='Dec 2 2008, 06:01 PM']Btw...

Am I the only who feels a strong case for moral relativism can be made using conscience as a foundation?[/quote]

The teaching can be (and commonly is) abused in such a way, yes. Just remember that the relativity of culpability does not imply relativity of moral truth. An error is an error. What we refer to in this thread is whether or not a person is in sin for an errant action to which his conscience sincerely obligated him.

If he knows the Church teaching (and thus that his conscience is in error), then he is not obligated to follow his conscience.

If he does not know the Church teaching (and thus does not know his conscience is in error), then he is obligated to follow his conscience.

In neither case is he culpable for the error of the sinful action, whatever it may be. But in both cases the action remains an error.

Absolute moral truth. Relative culpability.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' post='1716678' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:35 PM']So what if someone says their conscience disagrees with the Church's teaching on contraception?[/quote]
I'd sincerely doubt they are truly sincerely following their conscience, but rather conveniently disregarding moral teachings inconvenient to their "lifestyle."

Going against one's conscience in reality would be doing what one knows to be (or truly believes to be) wrong - not disregarding clear moral teachings because someone doesn't like them or find them hard.

That's not conscience; it's lack of moral backbone.

[quote name='mortify' post='1716715' date='Dec 2 2008, 06:01 PM']Btw...

Am I the only who feels a strong case for moral relativism can be made using conscience as a foundation?[/quote]
I don't feel that way at all.
The idea of conscience is a long-standing traditional teaching of the Church.

Rather, a weak excuse for moral relativism can be made using a total twisting/misunderstanding of what conscience means.

One has a duty to conform his conscience to truth - a true conscience is not based on one's self-serving "feelings."

[LivingStone]

I might be misunderstanding what you mean by moral relativism, but from what Veritatis Splendor advises is that Moral relativism (especially pragmatism, consequentialism, proportionalism, and teleological ethical theories) can be dangerous.

Just because something is the lesser of two evils, doesn't make it a moral or acceptable decision. A principle of double effect needs to be applied before moral relativism can measure whether an action or decision is considered moral or not.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1716678' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:35 PM']So what if someone says their conscience disagrees with the Church's teaching on contraception?[/quote]

Then apparently their conscience disagrees with the Church's teaching on contraception. At this point, they could follow the two obvious choices: obey their conscience or disobey it, but both of those choices result in disobedience to the Church. The only way to obey the Church is by forming their conscience through knowledge, prayer, and humility, and eventually coming to true unity.

[quote name='mortify' post='1716715' date='Dec 2 2008, 06:01 PM']Btw...

Am I the only who feels a strong case for moral relativism can be made using conscience as a foundation?[/quote]

Well, certainly a very slick and convincing case for those who aren't paying attention to the context of these teachings and refuse to accept the entire catholic truth about conscience instead of the parts that suit their preconceived conclusions.

[frenchfry]

Autonomous conscience are definitely dangerous! I think that people, myself included, have a tendency to put our feelings up on a pedestal and say that it is our conscience, so what are you going to do? But your conscience, the thing that you have to obey, is not the same as your feelings. It is impossible for a Catholic to say, I know that the church says X, but my conscience says Y. Conscience comes from the latin word to know. I don't think that you hear a Church teaching and then wait for your conscience to adjust - you wait for your feelings to adjust!

The church does say that for something to be a mortal sin, the person must know that it is wrong. People misinterpret this to mean that the person has to FEEL that it is wrong. Once you're heard the teaching, you know it's wrong - and if you disagree, this is from pride, not your "conscience."

Additionally, your conscience, unlike the Catholic Church, is not infallible. The more you sin, the more you stretch out your conscience, so the tenth time you do something, you still know that it is wrong, but you don't necessarily feel it - your conscience still knows, but it gets quieter. Conversely, if you avoid a particular sin for a long time, your conscience will yell if you try to do that thing again. Good motivation to avoid sins in the first place.

Oh, and masturbation is objectively grave matter for a mortal sin - there is no such thing as an objective mortal sin. But for almost everyone this particular sin meets the conditions, so a priest should know that it is probably mortal. Just because something is common does not mean that it is not grave.

[Ziggamafu]

Again, a lot of this teaching can be made clear by observing the difference between one's conscience being "okay" with disagreeing with Church teaching and one's conscience sincerely obligating the disagreement. The difference is a big one, and should clear up most abuses immediately.