Conscience Vs Church

[philothea]

[quote name='philothea' post='1715517' date='Nov 30 2008, 10:58 PM']My answer depends (maybe) on some details that aren't quite clear in the original. Are we speaking of simply choosing to do something because the person in question doesn't see it as wrong, despite Church teaching?

Or,

Are we talking about someone whose conscience tells them they [i]must[/i] do something, even though the Church says it's wrong?

I assume you mean the former, but I can't tell for sure.
[quote name='mortify' post='1715788' date='Dec 1 2008, 11:18 AM']
The former is what I had in mind.[/quote][/quote]
Oh, that's easy then. Follow Church teaching, of course!

[rkwright]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1715628' date='Dec 1 2008, 12:56 AM']Wow, I totally give you props for being so honest about this. Masturbation is a venial sin, but I think (and I could be wrong, I'm not for sure!) that you are supposed to confess venial sins too (although you can still go to Communion as long as you're not in mortal sin), sorry if I'm wrong. But you are doing the right thing trying to stop. If you slip up sometimes, God will forgive you, I'm sure He recognizes your efforts. -Katie[/quote]

I don't want people to get the wrong idea here... but objectively masturbation is a mortal sin.

The Church calls it a grave sin. Now subjectively there can be mitigating circumstances, but again objectively it is a mortal sin.

Edited December 1, 2008 by rkwright

[mortify]

[quote name='philothea' post='1715811' date='Dec 1 2008, 12:47 PM']Oh, that's easy then. Follow Church teaching, of course! [/quote]

What would your answer be if a Catholic's conscience [i]commanded[/i] them to commit a mortal sin?

Edited December 1, 2008 by mortify

[CatherineM]

[quote name='mortify' post='1715843' date='Dec 1 2008, 11:27 AM']What would your answer be if a Catholic's conscience [i]commanded[/i] them to commit a mortal sin?[/quote]

The only way I can imagine that happening is if I had a time machine, and had the opportunity to go back in time and murder Hitler before he came to power.

In the real world, we have to have the hope that the God knows what he is doing, and to trust in that. My conscience can't command me to do something intrinsically evil unless there is something wrong with the way my conscience has been formed.

[philothea]

[quote name='mortify' post='1715843' date='Dec 1 2008, 12:27 PM']What would your answer be if a Catholic's conscience [i]commanded[/i] them to commit a mortal sin?[/quote]
Well, that's unfortunate, because the only way that can happen is if they're insane. Or, Catherine's time machine, I suppose...

Believing the Church teaches something to be a mortal sin, and believing I must nevertheless do that thing is an irreconcilable contradiction, and I don't see how anyone possessed of a working intellect could come to it. But still, as far as I recall, actual Church teaching is that we are supposed to continually inform our consciences as well as we can, then follow them as primary guides.

Because, what is the alternative? If someone is honestly truly convinced that doing X (or failing to do X) is [i]wrong[/i]... they should do it anyway? People should deliberately and consciously do things they are convinced are evil? That doesn't work.

People can learn they were mistaken, become wiser and correct their ways, but the moral damage from doing things known to be wrong just because some authority said so is dreadful. You don't want people to stifle or learn to ignore their consciences. That leads to monsters.

Yes, the Church is an infallible guide, but it's not a booming voice in the sky that lets us know everything we ought to. A priest could be misinformed. A book could have a typo. A (gasp) website could be outright deceitful. And situations can be a whole lot more nuanced than any abstract teaching can help with.

We need to inform our consciences and then trust them.

Edited December 1, 2008 by philothea

[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.