Conscience Vs Church

[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.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='frenchfry' post='1717612' date='Dec 3 2008, 05:01 PM']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.[/quote]

Grave matter and full knowledge do not make a mortal sin without the consent of a free will.

In the case of habitual sins like this one, they usually are [i]not[/i] mortal because the habit has compromised free will. Plus, the very fact that it's a common problem also makes it easier to justify for those who are weaker, not to mention the influence of hormones on kids who lack the spiritual and psychological maturity to rule over them, which establishes the habit, and thus becomes more difficult to break even after maturing (if the habit isn't overly stunting their maturity growth).

"Downgrading" this matter to a venial sin (in most cases) doesn't make it a less serious matter. It is very serious, perhaps even more serious because it's not usually a mortal sin.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1718847' date='Dec 4 2008, 04:55 PM']In the case of habitual sins like this one, they usually are [i]not[/i] mortal because the habit has compromised free will.[/quote]
Sins of impurity are mortal sins, except maybe in a few cases.

Edited December 8, 2008 by mortify

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1721930' date='Dec 7 2008, 08:40 PM']Sins of impurity are mortal sins, except maybe in a few cases.[/quote]

They are grave sins, not necessarily mortal. Mortal sin consists of a grave sin that was committed with full knowledge and full consent of the will. If either of those is not present, it's a venial sin.

Still, all grave sins are called grave because they must be taken seriously due to the very real risk of quickly falling into mortal sin.

[mortify]

My problem is with you saying it's *usually* a venial sin.

Is that really a prudent thing to say?

[frenchfry]

It's true that habit can compromise your free will, but I don't think that this is true the extent that most sexual sins are venial! If you apply it to masturbation you have to apply it to adultery and fornication, too - I'm in the habit of sleeping around, so I didn't really consent my will...

IMO the free will qualification is more for people who really have a mental disorder, not the typical hormone crazy teenager. I do understand that you have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis and that many times it is a venial sin, but saying that it is usually a venial sin is dangerous, because it will encourage people who are in mortal sin not to take it seriously - oh, it's probably venial. I can wait a couple of weeks to go to confession.

I think that we should keep habit in mind so that we don't judge other people, but we shouldn't use it to make other people feel better about sinning. Priests should definitely consider this when hearing confessions, but we shouldn't talk about it so much that it makes it seem less serious than it is.

I may be totally wrong, though.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1718847' date='Dec 4 2008, 04:55 PM']Grave matter and full knowledge do not make a mortal sin without the consent of a free will.


"Downgrading" this matter to a venial sin (in most cases) doesn't make it a less serious matter. It is very serious, perhaps even more serious because it's not usually a mortal sin.[/quote]

How does this make it more serious?