Primacy and formation of conscience

[helenofbritain]

He sounds like my kind of Cardinal.

I think he probably is

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

There is something important missing here in the Primacy of the Conscience discussion.

We must follow our conscience it is true. But only if it is a PROPERLY INFORMED conscience.

And the properly informed conscience will be one that is in conformity with the teachings of Christ and those of His Catholic Church.

I'm not sure if a properly formed clause is right. First, it is hard to tell when one's conscience is properly formed. There are always more things one could have read (or read again) and more time that one could have spent in prayer. Second, it doesn't change that choosing something that one's conscience strongly discerns as evil will corrupt the will, conditioning it to choose what it sees as evil in the future.

I do think we have a serious responsibility to continuously do things that improve the formation of our consciences.

 

[AMDG]

I do think we have a serious responsibility to continuously do things that improve the formation of our consciences.

That's why we need to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

That's why we need to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium.

I do think that it is important to listen to what the Magisterium has to say and to meditate on its message. However, forming one's conscience is more than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt.

 

[JoabAnias]

I do think that it is important to listen to what the Magisterium has to say and to meditate on its message. However, forming one's conscience is more than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt.

I see what your saying and find it very interesting.

When you say forming ones conscience is more than adopting positions someone wants one to adopt I get some mixed feelings. I feel the "someones" position we are to adopt is Gods, but that discerning what that is isn't always so easy.

This is why I agree with the above statement about following the Magisterium too.

Mustn't we follow the dogma of the Church and trust they are infallible to start with to rightly develop our conscience so as to discern more fully what is or isn't Gods will? As you mentioned also, I also see more to it than just that too, like developing a prayer life and relationship with God and the praxis of the faith. Is there more?

I do see your point though and its a new concept for me which seems to allude to gray areas in forming our conscience. I guess I see the dogma and obedience to God besides the natural conscience as some things in our conscience that I think could never be relative at some time or other. But are there others that could perhaps?

As to the gray areas I am picking up on in your statement and if it please you to, elaborate more on ways you see that there is more to forming our consciences than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt please and thanks in advance.

As it stands I am working under the assumption its God and the Magisterium to conform to which I feel safe doing.


Peace.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I see what your saying and find it very interesting.

When you say forming ones conscience is more than adopting positions someone wants one to adopt I get some mixed feelings. I feel the "someones" position we are to adopt is Gods, but that discerning what that is isn't always so easy.

This is why I agree with the above statement about following the Magisterium too.

Mustn't we follow the dogma of the Church and trust they are infallible to start with to rightly develop our conscience so as to discern more fully what is or isn't Gods will? As you mentioned also, I also see more to it than just that too, like developing a prayer life and relationship with God and the praxis of the faith. Is there more?

I do see your point though and its a new concept for me which seems to allude to gray areas in forming our conscience. I guess I see the dogma and obedience to God besides the natural conscience as some things in our conscience that I think could never be relative at some time or other. But are there others that could perhaps?

As to the gray areas I am picking up on in your statement and if it please you to, elaborate more on ways you see that there is more to forming our consciences than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt please and thanks in advance.

As it stands I am working under the assumption its God and the Magisterium to conform to which I feel safe doing.


Peace.

We wish to conform to God and God wishes us to conform to Him, but in a matter of an apprentice conforming to the ways of his master rather than a slave following orders that he does not understand. The standard by which we judge the formation of a conscience is whether it grasps the underlying principles rather than conforming to a checklist of positions.

 

[JoabAnias]

We wish to conform to God and God wishes us to conform to Him, but in a matter of an apprentice conforming to the ways of his master rather than a slave following orders that he does not understand. The standard by which we judge the formation of a conscience is whether it grasps the underlying principles rather than conforming to a checklist of positions.

Understood. I would then ask through this process do you think one eventually will see that spiritually proving ones conscience in that manner will eventually lead to full agreement with the "check list' of the Church thus resulting in a fuller trust of Jesus? Perhaps even making our faith blind in obedience as we will no longer require to prove it for ourselves but just take it as its given?

Peace.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Understood. I would then ask through this process do you think one eventually will see that spiritually proving ones conscience in that manner will eventually lead to full agreement with the "check list' of the Church thus resulting in a fuller trust of Jesus? Perhaps even making our faith blind in obedience as we will no longer require to prove it for ourselves but just take it as its given?

Peace.

I do think that it will lead to agreement with the checklist for the most part, although since our understanding of things has changed over the millennia as it has deepened, this agreement may not be total.

Sometimes we are like cats responding to someone pointing. They look at the finger rather than where the finger is pointed. In the same way, we can become fixated on a particular formulation rather than the truth to which the formulation points.

 

[tadoflamb]

Bump

 

[QuantaCura]

I do think that it is important to listen to what the Magisterium has to say and to meditate on its message. However, forming one's conscience is more than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt.

But that's what faith is all about--adopting the positions God wants us to adopt because we have faith in His wisdom over ours. Reason is not the end all be all when it comes to forming one's conscience--"without faith it is impossible to please God."

And since He obviously does not directly reveal these things to every human individually (given the contradictory diversity of personal beliefs as such), there must be an objectively verifiable intermediary that proclaims that truth. By being a Catholic you accept it to be the bishop of Rome and the college of bishops in union with him as perpetuated since Pentecost. For faith in God to be authentic, it must have faith in His revelation, which itself requires faith in the proclaimer of it--"faith comes through hearing" and "he who hears you, hears Me."

 

[Globalnomad]

The concept of a "properly formed conscience", as it is normally used, is a huge Catch22.

If you disagree with a teaching of the Church, it means your conscience is not properly formed.

When you eventually come around to agree with the Church's teaching, then it means that your conscience is now properly formed.

If you never come around, that means that your conscience has not been properly formed yet.

So whatever happens, your freedom of conscience only gives you the freedom to work towards accepting the Church's teaching.

Sorry guys, I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I recognize brainwashing methods when I see them. As does anyone who has read Orwell's "1984".

Either there are some cases where I may legitimately end up with a different view than the Church's, or let's just forget this garbage argument about the supremacy of conscience.

And so that I don't end up on this negative note, I'll give you my own example. At the age of 11, I decided that I was going to read Marx and Lenin, because I needed to know what Communists taught if I wanted to be able to fight against them. This was at a time when the Index of Forbidden Books was still valid, and my senior primary school Catechism - and my parish priest - were telling me that I would be committing a mortal sin if I read those books. I defy any of you to tell me that I was wrong and they were right.

 

[Rebekka]

The concept of a "properly formed conscience", as it is normally used, is a huge Catch22.

If you disagree with a teaching of the Church, it means your conscience is not properly formed.

When you eventually come around to agree with the Church's teaching, then it means that your conscience is now properly formed.

If you never come around, that means that your conscience has not been properly formed yet.

So whatever happens, your freedom of conscience only gives you the freedom to work towards accepting the Church's teaching.

Sorry guys, I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I recognize brainwashing methods when I see them. As does anyone who has read Orwell's "1984".

Either there are some cases where I may legitimately end up with a different view than the Church's, or let's just forget this garbage argument about the supremacy of conscience.

And so that I don't end up on this negative note, I'll give you my own example. At the age of 11, I decided that I was going to read Marx and Lenin, because I needed to know what Communists taught if I wanted to be able to fight against them. This was at a time when the Index of Forbidden Books was still valid, and my senior primary school Catechism - and my parish priest - were telling me that I would be committing a mortal sin if I read those books. I defy any of you to tell me that I was wrong and they were right.

Yes, I agree. I see no freedom of conscience at all in the church. We don't need a conscience if we have the church rules. Following them is enough. I don't understand what good a conscience will do - either it's in line with church teaching but then it's redundant, or it's not in line with church teaching, but then we're not supposed to listen to it anyway.

Makes very little sense to me.

 

[tadoflamb]

The concept of a "properly formed conscience", as it is normally used, is a huge Catch22.

If you disagree with a teaching of the Church, it means your conscience is not properly formed.

When you eventually come around to agree with the Church's teaching, then it means that your conscience is now properly formed.

If you never come around, that means that your conscience has not been properly formed yet.

So whatever happens, your freedom of conscience only gives you the freedom to work towards accepting the Church's teaching.

Sorry guys, I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I recognize brainwashing methods when I see them. As does anyone who has read Orwell's "1984".

Either there are some cases where I may legitimately end up with a different view than the Church's, or let's just forget this garbage argument about the supremacy of conscience.

And so that I don't end up on this negative note, I'll give you my own example. At the age of 11, I decided that I was going to read Marx and Lenin, because I needed to know what Communists taught if I wanted to be able to fight against them. This was at a time when the Index of Forbidden Books was still valid, and my senior primary school Catechism - and my parish priest - were telling me that I would be committing a mortal sin if I read those books. I defy any of you to tell me that I was wrong and they were right.

When I converted five years ago, I was commited to abortion, and other non-Catholic teachings. As I came into the Church I realized I had to change. By the time I was confirmed, I didn't know all of what the Church teaches, but I knew as those teachings came around I would accept them in my own time. This is, when I went to RCIA, there was little or no teachings on abortion or morality. It seems as if my pastor has enough faith that he would let us form our own consciences. As I was given that freedom, as it turned out, my beliefs began to conform to that of the Catholic Church. Now, if I couldn't hang with the truth of Catholicism, nobody was forcing me into the Catholic Church. Christ said to his disciples, "Do any of you want to leave?" When asked the same question at RCIA, I responded with the words of St. Peter, "To whom shall I go, you have the words of eternal life?"

What I'm trying to say is, I haven't been brainwashed or lorded over or spoon-fed my faith. The opposite is true. RCIA is for adults, and it only covers so much, so in order to find out what the Church teaches, I've had to pursue it. I've been allowed to freely accept the teachings of Christ and His Church and I have the freedom to leave if I can't handle it. It's really been a liberating experience.

 

[QuantaCura]

The concept of a "properly formed conscience", as it is normally used, is a huge Catch22.

If you disagree with a teaching of the Church, it means your conscience is not properly formed.

When you eventually come around to agree with the Church's teaching, then it means that your conscience is now properly formed.

If you never come around, that means that your conscience has not been properly formed yet.

So whatever happens, your freedom of conscience only gives you the freedom to work towards accepting the Church's teaching.

Sorry guys, I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I recognize brainwashing methods when I see them. As does anyone who has read Orwell's "1984".

Either there are some cases where I may legitimately end up with a different view than the Church's, or let's just forget this garbage argument about the supremacy of conscience.

And so that I don't end up on this negative note, I'll give you my own example. At the age of 11, I decided that I was going to read Marx and Lenin, because I needed to know what Communists taught if I wanted to be able to fight against them. This was at a time when the Index of Forbidden Books was still valid, and my senior primary school Catechism - and my parish priest - were telling me that I would be committing a mortal sin if I read those books. I defy any of you to tell me that I was wrong and they were right.

GN, you are mixing things up. Conscience is not about judging the truth of a matter--that is what faith and reason are for. Conscience is about acting in a particular concrete situation given the truth that is known. As Cardinal Newman and, later, John Paul II explained, there can never be a conflict between conscience and the teaching authority of the Church. The only place such a conflict could occur would be between conscience and a legislative action of the Church (ie. go burn Joan d'Arc, go engage in this particular war against the Muslims, etc.)

Likewise, you are comparing a purely human organization--communist block governments--to one that has divine assistance and safeguards. God can command internal assent.

When people raise the "conscience" objection about accepting a particular truth, what they are really doing is judging it to be unreasonable. But this is often in realms where reason should not be used exclusively. Faith and reason go hand in hand, reason helps defend the truths of faith, but faith purifies our reason from error.

 

[QuantaCura]

Yes, I agree. I see no freedom of conscience at all in the church. We don't need a conscience if we have the church rules. Following them is enough. I don't understand what good a conscience will do - either it's in line with church teaching but then it's redundant, or it's not in line with church teaching, but then we're not supposed to listen to it anyway.

Makes very little sense to me.

As I explained to GN, it's because you are not talking about conscience here. Conscience comes into play in your concrete actions in the world given the truth that you receive in faith from the Church.

For example, let's say your boss instructs you to complete a certain task. You would exercise your freedom of conscience by judging that particular act by the true morality you have received by faith in God's revelation (as proclaimed by the successors of Peter and the Apostles with the safeguard of the Holy Spirit.)

If you judge with your conscience the particular act your boss is commanding to be against authentic morality, then you should not be bound, either with force or by an internal obligation, to go against your conscience. That is what freedom of conscience is. It is not involved in judging whether particular propositions are true or not.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Reiterating.

Read this CC.

Rather, we enter into a period of prayer, study and inquiry to try to understand the message and to understand why we find ourselves opposed to it. And we should realize that if the matter that puzzles us is one of a binding Church teaching or a central moral teaching, then prayer and study of this may be a lifetime's work.

A Catholic conscience cannot accept a settled position against the Church, at least on a central moral teaching. Any difficulties with Church teaching should be not the end of the matter but the beginning of a process of conversion, education and quite possibly repentance. Where a Catholic disagrees with the Church on some serious matter, the response should not be "that's that; I can't follow the Church here"; instead we should kneel and pray that God will lead our weak steps and enlighten our fragile minds, as Newman recommends in Sermon 17 — "The Testimony of Conscience."

Of course, Newman's view of conscience is profoundly counterintuitive to modern ears. For Newman, conscience is objective, hard work, a challenge to self, a call to conversion, a sign of humility; and this sits uncomfortably for those who see freedom as the right to reject what is unpalatable. Many will say: "You can interpret conscience this way if you want to — I'll even defend your right to do so! But my own view is very different."

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

There is something important missing here in the Primacy of the Conscience discussion.

We must follow our conscience it is true. But only if it is a PROPERLY INFORMED conscience.

And the properly informed conscience will be one that is in conformity with the teachings of Christ and those of His Catholic Church.

Read this too Charlie.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I do think that it is important to listen to what the Magisterium has to say and to meditate on its message. However, forming one's conscience is more than adopting the positions someone wants one to adopt.

That someone happens to be God through His church.

 

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

The concept of a "properly formed conscience", as it is normally used, is a huge Catch22.

If you disagree with a teaching of the Church, it means your conscience is not properly formed.

When you eventually come around to agree with the Church's teaching, then it means that your conscience is now properly formed.

If you never come around, that means that your conscience has not been properly formed yet.

So whatever happens, your freedom of conscience only gives you the freedom to work towards accepting the Church's teaching.

Sorry guys, I was born behind the Iron Curtain and I recognize brainwashing methods when I see them. As does anyone who has read Orwell's "1984".

Either there are some cases where I may legitimately end up with a different view than the Church's, or let's just forget this garbage argument about the supremacy of conscience.

And so that I don't end up on this negative note, I'll give you my own example. At the age of 11, I decided that I was going to read Marx and Lenin, because I needed to know what Communists taught if I wanted to be able to fight against them. This was at a time when the Index of Forbidden Books was still valid, and my senior primary school Catechism - and my parish priest - were telling me that I would be committing a mortal sin if I read those books. I defy any of you to tell me that I was wrong and they were right.

I agree totally.

The Catholic way is the right way. If your conscience differs, then it's not properly formed.

It's a circular argument.

 

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

There is something important missing here in the Primacy of the Conscience discussion.

We must follow our conscience it is true. But only if it is a PROPERLY INFORMED conscience.

And the properly informed conscience will be one that is in conformity with the teachings of Christ and those of His Catholic Church.

And Round and Round we go.....