Originally posted by bbarr
I think the Church intends 'informed' to mean something like 'justified by reference to the demonstrably true'. Since the Church has a body of doctrine they take to be demonstrably true, it follows that they understand 'informed' to be such that an informed conscience could not, as a matter of fact, conflict with Church doctrine. Any apparent conflict ...[text shortened]... tion, an erroneous inference, or a extra-doctrinal supposition on the part of the conscientious.
I follow and have come to the same conclusion.
However, what follows from this is that a person, who (in the eyes of
the Church) does not have a fully informed conscience (and, as a
result, finds him/herself in disagreement with a doctrine) is compelled
to either act against his ('imperfectly informed'😉 conscience, thus
condemning him/herself or acting against doctrine, thus condemning
him/herself.
As such, what the Church demands is a submission of conscience to
Her teachings in spite of conscience. In fact, the role of conscience is
relatively insignificant, for you never need to confer with it; all one
needs is knowledge of the doctrines in order to make decisions.
Nemesio