I think you’ll find nothing in the catechism to back up your assertion.
It’s already been quoted my friend.
Of course I’ve read it. That’s what I was quoting from. And I have no quarrel with the idea that conscience must be “informed” --but when you bring that into the real world, it’s not as clear as you might think. I would think it would be obvious that for a smaller matter you need spend less time “informing” your conscience that a major matter. But I don’t think God expects each of us to get a PhD in a particular field to “inform” our conscience. Nor do I think God wants each of us to blindly follow the Church. One can find tons of examples where, if one took a Church teaching from one period and applied it to 2018, you would be completely wrong. But what if someone from that earlier period disagreed with the same teaching? Today they would be in the mainstream of religious thinking. But at the time they would be seen as defying the Church. (Galileo, etc.) In the end, we are each responsible for ourselves. At the Last Judgment we can’t say “I was just following orders.”
But no where in the Catechism does it say: “Conscience is supreme and if you feel you are ok in your conscience, then you can do what you like, even if it’s explicitly against the teaching of the Church.”
The Church simply doesn’t teach that conscience trumps Church teaching.
Oh dear…how many times have I heard that!
As if applying Church Teaching to the “real world” is some complicated thing that’s only possible for the select few.
Actually it does. My original quotation from the Catechism:
1782 "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
She didn’t say what you have quoted. You should make it more clear that those are not her words, but that they are a quotation of your own misunderstanding of her words.
Yeah, but he also has the responsibility to inform the conscience. Conscience isn’t infallible. It’s just essential to free will that people are allowed to follow their conscience. Doesn’t mean that their conscience will always steer them right.
Really, anything can be justified if you simply say “well, conscience is supreme”.
But using conscience to justify acts which are inherently evil doesn’t make them ok…it is the sin of pride and puts man in the place of God.
We disagree. As I said, I don’t want to debate this–it’s fruitless.
Thanks. One VERY frustrating thing I find on these forums is that people put words in your mouth. I almost always quote the Catechism, Vatican II documents, or other official Church documents in my posts. As we all know, these are not always unambiguous–usually the opposite. And it’s intentional. So different people can have different interpretations.
Is the person taking hormones that can also be a contraceptive to treat a medical condition OR is the person using a device or medication or action with the intent to render sterile the marital act?
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I simply used an example to make what I am saying unambiguous.
You went on to actually agree with the statement I used as an example so I don’t see how you can complain about “putting words in your mouth”.
This would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Why do you think the Church has teachings at all if that’s the case?
Sorry, but who has a conscience so warped that they can read from a credable source “X is a mortal sin”, and honestly think that it is not? If they disagree with this, despite knowing what the Church teaches, then they are, with all due respect, falling into heretical beliefs. Do you not agree with the definition of mortal sin? If someone has full knowledge and consents to an action that is grave matter, they commit a mortal sin. It doesn’t matter if they don’t like it.
Sorry, I think I will go by what has always been Church teaching rather that the passing opinion of several liberal clerics…
Agreed. These texts in the CCC assume a reasonably well-formed conscience, not one that is warped and attempting to perform mental gymnastics in order to be satisfied with performing an action that is explicitly forbidden by Church teaching. I have yet to hear anyone proclaim that it is moral to murder the first person I see on the street because I was merely “following my conscience”. Nor have I heard any cleric say that it is moral to procure an abortion, take the Eucharist and flush it down a toilet, or burn down my local parish because I was simply “following my conscience”. This whole line of reasoning is absurd and is only ever applied to teachings that people find difficult or disagree with to give themselves cover for disobeying moral law. It is no coincidence that you never heard of this back in the times of St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI and only started hearing this in the last five years; certain prelates who have now gained positions of power in the Church are doing their utmost to attack the moral teachings of the Church, and Humanae Vitae is their number one target.
You’re asking very easy questions! If there was an almost infinite continuum between black (one interpretation of church teachings) on one side and white (another interpretation) on the other, you would have two points where there was pure white or pure black. In between–in an almost infinite variety–you would have variations.
I’ll use an analogy I always trot out: stopping at a red light. A city passes a law: You must stop at a red light or pay a fine. (= Church “rule”) Great! Unambiguous, right? Not at all. If you are travelling 50 mph and the light begins to turn amber, do you continue or stop? At some point, if you continue, you will not “stop at a red light.” But a fraction of a second sooner, and you’re OK. Who is to judge? You. The police. A judge. Let’s add to it: let’s say it’s rainy or there is ice on the road…do you slam on the brakes and risk a major accident just in order to “stop at a red light”? Or go to scenarios, which are endless. You are driving a badly injured person to the emergency room–do you stop and risk their lives? Or maybe it’s 4 AM and you can see 1 mile in all directions–no cars. Do you stop? You can go on and on. That’s why police (= Church, or confessor) have the power to ignore your “crime.” And that’s why a judge (= God) has the power to decide if you are guilty or not.
So why does the Church have teachings at all? Because, yes, it’s a good idea to have a law that says “Stop at a red light.” Otherwise there is chaos. But there are also lots of extenuating circumstances that allow you to ignore the law.
i.e., ones that disagree with you?
i.e., ones that disagree with Church teaching.
How about St. Augustine?
This is pure nonsense.
The Church simply doesn’t teach in that manner.
According to you, it would be ok to simply ignore any rule or church teaching as long as you could justify it in your own conscience.
What about the ten commandments?
That’s a fairly unambiguous list right there?