What do you think of the following case?
A person says, “I do not think Action X is wrong. The Church, however, teaches that it is gravely wrong. On that account, I avoid Action X, I would not receive Holy Communion until confessing if I committed Action X, and I teach others that the Church considers Action X is gravely wrong. As to my opinion about it, I keep my mouth shut. It is enough for me that the Church teaches that it is wrong, simply on the principle that the Magesterium may decide what is bound and what is loosed.”
Is there anything wrong with this? Is it like a teenager who does not think anything wrong with a particular part of town, but who avoids it, not because she fears punishment but out of a desire to be obedient to her father, and advises others to do the same because her father has told her it is strictly forbidden it and it is her duty to teach what he teaches, rather than undermine him?
In other words, while it is good for her to work at understanding her father’s position, as long as she is willing to be obedient and defers to her father’s judgement, she is OK? Her conscience is not erroneous as long as she conforms it to her father’s, whether she understands why or not?
Another opinion might be that she sins, is actually rebellious, or cannot really repent, unless she actually comes see why her father teaches this. Furthermore, she runs the high risk of giving into her own erroneous judgement until she conforms more to his way of thinking. In other words, her contrition cannot be real and her conscience is erroneously formed until she actually sees the action as wrong from her own judgement.
Comments? Third and fourth opinions?