Catholic 'Informed Conscience'

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you honestly think that if you think about, meditate and pray enough "for guidance" you can change evil to good ? Is that the way you fooled yourself into your positions on artificial birthcontrol, abortion and euthanasia ?

for me this is exactly why I find this argument intreging. If we're reading this right the CC teaches that if after all your soul searching, contemplation and prayer your conscience still tells you that breaching church law is the right thing to do then you should follow your conscience and break that law. If this is followed a man who is told "thou shalt not steal" could steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. A man could equally convince himslef that murder ofprostitutes was the morally correct thing to do. I can see some sense in the teaching but as people we are pretty flawed in our moral decisions sometimes which makes the teaching dangerous.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
for me this is exactly why I find this argument intreging. If we're reading this right the CC teaches that if after all your soul searching, contemplation and prayer your conscience still tells you that breaching church law is the rig ...[text shortened]... our moral decisions sometimes which makes the teaching dangerous.

How can the teaching of "Thou shalt not kill" be dangerous in combination with teaching everybody how to develop their conscience according to Church's teachings and obey his own conscience ?

The teachings of the CC also entails that you yourself are responsible for your own deeds. That's why your own conscience is always, and always has to be, the decisive factor in choosing what to do. You NEVER can blame someone else. That is not dangerous, on the contrary, that is the correct stance to take.

If you think that the CC is justifying actions undertaken as a consequense of an erring conscience than you are plain wrong.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

The teaching of "Thou shalt not kill" is dangerous ?

sorry, wasn't I clear? I was trying to say the exact opposite - that if we are allowed to disobey church law because our conscience tells us that we should then we would be allowed to kill people if we cinvinced ourselves it was the right thing to do.

An example could be a Christian deciding that he would fight against Nazi Germany, thereby disobeying the "thou shalt not kill" law, which many people would agree with as a case where his moral conscience has overridden a broad law. But another person could convince themselves that Muslims are infidels so it is permissable to kill them on the street. Therefore I was saying that teaching that we can disobey church law if we think it's the right thing to do is a dangerous concept.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
sorry, wasn't I clear? I was trying to say the exact opposite - that if we are allowed to disobey church law because our conscience tells us that we should then we would be allowed to kill people if we cinvinced ourselves it was the r ...[text shortened]... aw if we think it's the right thing to do is a dangerous concept.

I can see that you were very rapid in reading and answering my post. I hope if you reread my post including the parts I added you will be more pleased with it.

One thing bugs me though. If I remember correctly you are not a fervent advocate of the CC ..... on the contrary. How do I understand your position regarding the Church's teachings on abortion and euthanasia, your own opposite position regarding these subjects and your remarks about the CC teachings being dangerous ?

BF: " Therefore I was saying that teaching that we can disobey church law if we think it's the right thing to do is a dangerous concept."

That's why Nemesio's interpretation of the CC teachings in this case is confused to say the least. The CC isn't teaching this at all.

EDIT: Not the Church's teachings are dangerous but Nemesio's interpretations of the teachings are.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I can see that you were very rapid in reading and answering my post. I hope if you reread my post including the parts I added you will be more pleased with it.

One thing bugs me though. If I remember correctly you are not a fervent advocate of the CC ..... on the contrary. How do I understand your position regarding the Church's teachings on abortion an ...[text shortened]... C teachings in this case is confused to say the least. The CC isn't teaching this at all.

acutally, you edited your post at the same time I was writing mine, so there was no chance for me to read your extended version. I'll respond to that now.

That's why your own conscience is always... the decisive factor in choosing what to do.

If you think that the CC is justifying actions undertaken as a consequense of an erring conscience than you are plain wrong.

It seems that you are firstly saying that we must in all situations interpret what to do based on our own consicence, then saying that the CC does not justify action taken due to "erring conscience". I don't see how these can fit together, unless you are saying that God will never let your conscience tell you to do the wrong thing. Or is the CC saying that a person should use their conscience but if they get it wrong that they're on their own?

Who's to say a persons conscience is "erring"? A persons conscience is what he feels is right - it can be mislead or missinformed and coem to different conclusions than other peopes, but not "wrong". To tell someone "it's OK to disobey the laws, just as long as you felt it was the right thing to do" leaves massive swing depending on what individuals think is "right". I suspect this is not what is intended, but what is meant is not clear from what I've read so far.

I can't respond to you question regarding my position on the CC and why it is confusing you as I don't really understand what you wrote. Could you rephrase it?

Originally posted by belgianfreak
for me this is exactly why I find this argument intreging. If we're reading this right the CC teaches that if after all your soul searching, contemplation and prayer your conscience still tells you that breaching church law is the right thing to do then you should follow your conscience and break that law. If this is followed a man who is told "thou s ...[text shortened]... people we are pretty flawed in our moral decisions sometimes which makes the teaching dangerous.

The whole point of this thread was to show that Nemesio's interpretation of "informed conscience" as taught by the Catholic Church was erroneous. The Church does not ask you to follow your conscience if it violates Church teaching.

aaaahh! I missed a crucial point, that your first post was actually a quote from Nemisto that you were trying to dispute not attest to. So is what your saying is that the CC teaches "follow the laws, not your conscience - the laws are there for this very reason"? If so, how should the passages at the begining be read to support this?

Originally posted by belgianfreak
aaaahh! I missed a crucial point, that your first post was actually a quote from Nemisto that you were trying to dispute not attest to. So is what your saying is that the CC teaches "follow the laws, not your conscience - the laws are ...[text shortened]... , how should the passages at the begining be read to support this?

Refer back to the second post on page 1 and the first and second posts on page 2.

EDIT: Nemesio*

Originally posted by belgianfreak
acutally, you edited your post at the same time I was writing mine, so there was no chance for me to read your extended version. I'll respond to that now.

[b]That's why your own conscience is always... the decisive factor in choos ...[text shortened]... don't really understand what you wrote. Could you rephrase it?

BF: "It seems that you are firstly saying that we must in all situations interpret what to do based on our own consicence, then saying that the CC does not justify action taken due to "erring conscience".

Correct.

BF: "I don't see how these can fit together, unless you are saying that God will never let your conscience tell you to do the wrong thing. Or is the CC saying that a person should use their conscience but if they get it wrong that they're on their own?"

This is a rather complicated issue. First of all: Most of the time you don't need to interprete the Church's teachings. Usually they are crystal clear, for instance on the issues of artificial birth control, abortion and euthanasia. One can never claim the following: "I interprete the Church's teachings in such a way that I conclude, after thinking about it, after meditating about it and after praying the Holy spirit for guidance that artificial birth control, abortion and euthanasia are morally justified. In fact I conclude that the Church is erring and that I am right on these issues. I justify my position morally on the fact that the Church teaches that one should follow their own conscience in case of a conflict between Church's teaching's and ones own conscience."

This is absolutely unacceptable.

The teachings about the issues at hand are crystal clear. However the complicated issues of conscience, following ones own conscience and how ones conscience can be distorted and clouded by sin and in particular by structurally sinning are being pushed aside and used to justify a stance that is clearly in violation with Church's teachings.

In short: One uses the Church's teachings on the subject of conscience to justify actions and stances contrary to the Church's teachings. This is unacceptable. If one thinks certain stances are morally unacceptable one should come with arguments against those stances.

BF: "Or is the CC saying that a person should use their conscience but if they get it wrong that they're on their own?"

If they keep insisting and keep on erring structurally, if they insist on being disobedient, they are indeed "on their own" in the end. People have a choice to accept or reject the Church's teachings. They have to accept the consequenses. You can't have it both ways.
(By the way this doesn't mean you cannot question or debate church's teachings. That is quite another chapter.)

BF: "Who's to say a persons conscience is "erring"?

The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

BF: " A persons conscience is what he feels is right - it can be mislead or missinformed and coem to different conclusions than other peopes, but not "wrong"."

But of course your conscience can come to the wrong moral conclusions. If for instance you let your reasoning be guided by the wrong principles, you open up to sin, hatred for instance, you can go astray from the Truth. A person who lets his reasoning and conscience be guided and influenced by hatred towards foreigners is straying from the Truth the CC teaches. If they insist on doing so and refuse to yield and refuse to ask God forgiveness they are indeed "on their own". These attitudes can never be morally justified by an appeal to the fact that the Church teaches that you have to follow your own conscience in the end. In this instance of xenofobia this person's conscience is clearly in the wrong. He opens himself to sin (hatred) and thus his conscience becomes darkened and will start to err.

There are many ways we can open ourselves up to sin, meaning the wrong principles, the wrong attitudes, to guide us. As a result of that action, the opening up, we will be inclined to sin even more. The more we sin the more our conscience will become clouded and the more we will sin.

Pride in the meaning of Vanity is one of the most serious sins and the most threatening to today's society.

BF: "it's OK to disobey the laws, just as long as you felt it was the right thing to do" leaves massive swing depending on what individuals think is "right". I suspect this is not what is intended, but what is meant is not clear from what I've read so far."

I agree with you. Nemesio has caused the confusion ...... he has some explaining to do about where exactly he stands ..... I guess.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
aaaahh! I missed a crucial point, that your first post was actually a quote from Nemisto that you were trying to dispute not attest to. So is what your saying is that the CC teaches "follow the laws, not your conscience - the laws are ...[text shortened]... , how should the passages at the begining be read to support this?

BF: " So is what your saying is that the CC teaches "follow the laws, not your conscience - the laws are there for this very reason"?

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH ......... 😀

No, that is not what LH is saying.

The Law makes us aware of our sins. How does Saint Paul says this ? ..... I forgot.
Without the Law we would not know what sin is. We would not know whether we were sinning at all. The Law is given to form, to model, to build our conscience, to guide us through life, to not go astray.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The whole point of this thread was to show that Nemesio's interpretation of "informed conscience" as taught by the Catholic Church was erroneous. The Church does [b]not ask you to follow your conscience if it violates Church teaching.[/b]

Correct.

Ivanhoe,

I see you have resumed trolling me, posting things that are both off-topic and
baiting for a fight. As I understand that these things are against the posting
policy here, I advise you to stay on topic and avoid trying to start arguments.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Can we agree, then, that the views on "informed conscience" you presented in the "Salvation" and "John Paul the Great" threads do not accurately reflect Church teachings on the matter?

I'll return to the rest of your post later today.

Either my position is correct, or there is a contradiction in Church teaching, as I
mentioned above.

The only other option is that the Church expects submission of conscience to Her
teachings, in which case, the high esteem in which the Church holds conscience is
disingenuous.

These are the only possibilities. I submit that I may have been wrong, but only
if there is an acknowledgement of contradiction or that the Church does not truly
hold the conscience as a means of discernment.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "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.' "

Do you honestly think that if yo ...[text shortened]... you fooled yourself into your positions on artificial birthcontrol, abortion and euthanasia ?

You don't my positions on abortion and euthanasia, Ivanhoe, so stop demonizing me.

As for the 'evils of artificial birthcontrol,' I've yet to see you (or anyone) produce a
compelling argument for this.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
One can never claim the following: "I interprete the Church's teachings in such a way that I conclude, after thinking about it, after meditating about it and after praying the Holy spirit for guidance that artificial birth control, abortion and euthanasia are morally justified. In fact I conclude that the Church is erring and that I am right on these issues. I justify my position morally on the fact that the Church teaches that one should follow their own conscience in case of a conflict between Church's teaching's and ones own conscience."

This is absolutely unacceptable.

In other words, in cases such as above, one should submit one's informed conscience to the
teaching of the Church, correct? That is, conscience should play no role in decision making as
it pertains to Doctrines of the Church, correct?

That is: when the Church teaches something, the role of conscience whether it agrees or
disagrees is totally irrelevant. The Church specifically advocates submission of will to all
its teachings, which it deems Infallibile.

Is this all correct?

If they keep insisting and keep on erring structurally, if they insist on being disobedient, they are indeed "on their own" in the end. People have a choice to accept or reject the Church's teachings. They have to accept the consequenses. You can't have it both ways.

In other words, if you follow the teachings of the Church, you will get into heaven because the
Church will mediate on that person's behalf. This is no different than Darfius's claim. The Church
says 'The Pope has the power of infallible discernment of the Holy Spirit.' Darfius claims,
'Believers [who believe as I do] have the power of discernment of the Holy Spirit.'

In both cases, where there is disagreement (either with the Pope/Church or with Darfius), the
presumption is defectiveness of morality on the part of the person holding a different position.

Nemesio