Catholic 'Informed Conscience'

Originally posted by Nemesio
The Roman Catholic Catechism has a section (as I have brought up before) on the role of conscience in spiritual life. If a Roman Catholic has contemplated, prayed, talked to God, worried about, and considered birth control from every angle and cannot justify the Church's position on it, then that Roman Catholic is obligated to follow his/her conscience -- that the sin that follows from acting in behavior not in accordance with their conscience is greater than the potential sin that follows from following a teaching which the person feels is in error.

This does not make them any less faithful or any less a Roman Catholic.

Could I get the CCC section/reference you speak of?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]The Roman Catholic Catechism has a section (as I have brought up before) on the role of conscience in spiritual life. If a Roman Catholic has contemplated, prayed, talked to God, worried about ...[text shortened]... tholic.

Could I get the CCC section/reference you speak of?[/b]

I'll start with some CCC material.

It seems to me that you are referring to the following section:

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.[50]

However, this does not justify the person's rejection of the Church position:

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.

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."[59] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

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.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll start with some CCC material.

It seems to me that you are referring to the following section:

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. [b]In all he says and does, man is obliged t ...[text shortened]... t the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Hope that makes things clearer.[/b]

Not to be too "lawyerish" but is the ban on "unnatural" contraception methods a Church "teaching" under the CCC? Are people who use a condom, for example, doing "evil"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not to be too "lawyerish" but is the ban on "unnatural" contraception methods a Church "teaching" under the CCC? Are people who use a condom, for example, doing "evil"?

Quite simply, yes:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self- observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.[157] These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:[158]
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[159]

EDIT: This is off-topic, however. I would not wish for this thread to be side-tracked into a conversation on contraception. At least, not until I have Nemesio's response.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not to be too "lawyerish" but is the ban on "unnatural" contraception methods a Church "teaching" under the CCC? Are people who use a condom, for example, doing "evil"?

Condoms are an abomination unto God. People who use condoms are violating the natural law. This perspective is, in short, is why Catholicism is doomed in the U.S.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Quite simply, yes:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self- observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.[157] These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In c ...[text shortened]... final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[159]

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[159]

How does using a condom consitute a failure to totally give one's self to one's spouse? What 'inner truth' is falsified by the use of condoms? How does the use of a condom constitute a 'positive refusal to be open to life'?

I am trying to interpret these words in reference to the many married couples I know who want to wait to have children, or already have as many as they can take care of. These couples are holding themselves back from one another? How so? Are these folks being identified with their procreative powers in some odd way? It seems to me that the use of condoms doesn't involve any sort of refusal to be open to life, but rather a refusal to be open to the possibility of bringing new life into the world at a particular time. Why is this bad, are we nothing more than God's chattel?

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which ...[text shortened]... into the world at a particular time. Why is this bad, are we nothing more than God's chattel?

Would not also spending time in a hot tub have the same effect as high temperatures kill sperm? To a lesser degree this is also true of wearing jockey shorts as opposed to boxers.

[i/]Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]
Quite simply, yes:

[i/]2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self- observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.[157] These methods r ...[text shortened]... on contraception. At least, not until I have Nemesio's response.

All I can say is: 🙄

I also fail to see how a question relating to the very portion of the CCC that you cited is "off-topic".

Originally posted by bbarr
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not ...[text shortened]... r time. Why is this bad, are we nothing more than God's chattel?

This was precisely what I was hoping would not happen in this thread. Could you repost this question in a new thread? I will be happy to address it there.

Originally posted by no1marauder
All I can say is: 🙄

I also fail to see how a question relating to the very portion of the CCC that you cited is "off-topic".

I meant that a discussion on contraception in a thread about "informed conscience" is off-topic. I am happy to address the discussion, either in another thread, or in this thread once the discussion on informed conscience has concluded.

EDIT: I would like to see the reference Nemesio was alluding to when he said that a Catholic is obliged to follow his conscience even if it violates Church teaching.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll start with some CCC material.

It seems to me that you are referring to the following section:

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. [b]In all he says and does, man is obliged t ...[text shortened]... t the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Hope that makes things clearer.[/b]

I cited this very material before (I just gave the reference numbers,
I believe). It is somewhere in this forum, though it might have been
moderated by the anti-Catholic folk around here.

1790 answers your question. Ignorance is not excuse for conscience.
However, it is 100% that if you have contemplated, prayed, meditated
and thought about a topic and simply cannot rationally or spiritually
be compelled by the position of the Church, one is morally
obligiated to 'always obey the certain judgment' of one's
conscience, with emphasis on 'certainty.'

This is why the term 'informed conscience' is used. One is
expected to strive to understand the position of the Church by
studying the documents and the Bible, but one absolutely cannot go
against one's (informed) conscience just because the Church teaches
differently.

To make the argument that disagreement with the Church
necessitates ignorance is to fall into the Darfius-Trap, wherein a
person claims 'Well, if you disagree, you don't have the Holy Spirit and
can't understand and are ignorant.' I reject such non-reasoning.

Nemesio

To make the argument that disagreement with the Church
necessitates ignorance is to fall into the Darfius-Trap, wherein a
person claims 'Well, if you disagree, you don't have the Holy Spirit and
can't understand and are ignorant.' I reject such non-reasoning.

When have I ever said such a thing? That was a despicable thing to say, Nemesio, and frankly below even your standards.

That was a despicable thing to say, Nemesio, and frankly below even your standards.

Gee, Darfius I always thought Nemesio's standards were pretty high.

Originally posted by Darfius
When have I ever said such a thing? That was a despicable thing to say, Nemesio, and frankly below even your standards.

Are you denying that, when people (non-Christians or liberal Christains)
present you with alternate readings of Scripture, you have said that
their reading is incorrect and, because of their non-fundamentalist
status, they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Are you really denying this, because if you are, I am sure I can hunt
more than a few posts where you have said this very thing.

If you are not denying it, then you cannot say that it was despicable
of me to say it. You may not like that I coined the 'Darfius-Trap' term
but you are the first person I know that has ever claimed that anyone
who disagrees with your theological position must not have the Holy
Spirit coursing through them.

Nemesio

Originally posted by telerion
Gee, Darfius I always thought Nemesio's standards were pretty high.

Nope, I'm a bottom feeder. Just ask him.

You see, it is permissible for him to blatantly insult me (despite his
Christian charge to turn the other cheek), but I have no doubt that
he has alerted a few of my posts (like the one above) in an effort to
silence my opinion.

It is his right, I just hope that the moderators will respond to any
unwarranted alerting with a warning to him.

Nemesio