A Must-Read Article on Conscience

[Michie]

Thank you Gwen, Dylan, & David. As I said previously, I don't understand the confusion or what ever it is on this issue but it is important we take the issue of conscience in the context of the way it is taught by the RCC. And as MikeK says, not propagate falsehoods.

 

[Fantine]

I do not long for a monolothic body of doctrine and be wary of personally aimed attacks, they are violations of the rules.

There wasn't any value judgment or malice in my comment.

I recognize that people have different points of view and I accept that. I would, of course, appreciate it if that acceptance was returned.

Your voluminous posts seem to indicate that it is extremely and vitally important that this issue be buried once and for all so that people know that America Magazine and Father Martin did the world and the Church a disservice by publicizing it.

And you have partially succeeded. You have succeeded in convincing the people who already agree with you that Fr. Martin and the magazine did the world and the Church a disservice by publicizing it.

I did look up the theologian Bernhard Karig, CSsR. He died in 1988. He was never sanctioned or censured in any way. He wrote 80 books and 1000 articles and taught at many prestigious universities.

There is a reason why Father Karig and Father Martin and America Magazine haven't been censured, and forgive me for wondering if it isn't the same reason why you chose to bury their ideas in a pile of arcane references in books most of us don't have access to.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Your voluminous posts seem to indicate that it is extremely and vitally important that this issue be buried once and for all so that people know that America Magazine and Father Martin did the world and the Church a disservice by publicizing it.

No. His posts explain the context behind Fr Martin's comments, which you have clearly missed, or at least completely disagree with.

As Catholics, we should know that EVERYTHING has context. That is part of what the Magisterium does - offer context for our entire Tradition. Like it or not, that is how Catholicism defines conscience, and that has nothing to do with being a legalist or something.

 

[Fantine]

America put the information in a context as well.

And I completely understand why one might root around old texts to develop alternative contexts if one doesn't like the context America put them in.

It's OK. I get it.

 

[MikeK]

Thank you once again for your tireless efforts, David. Good work.

 

[Fantine]

I also appreciate the efforts David took to reframe the contexts of the America article into a context that many of you are obviously more comfortable with...

Just as I am grateful for America for giving us new contexts to appreciate.

I think the two contexts are indicative of Pope Francis' comments in the article about community and hierarchy coming together, about discussion and dialogue.

Thanks for giving us the hierarchical position, David.

 

[Michie]

Did anybody read the comments after the article? I suggest you do. Interesting.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I also appreciate the efforts David took to reframe the contexts of the America article into a context that many of you are obviously more comfortable with...

Just as I am grateful for America for giving us new contexts to appreciate.

I think the two contexts are indicative of Pope Francis' comments in the article about community and hierarchy coming together, about discussion and dialogue.

Thanks for giving us the hierarchical position, David.

You have constantly pushed your agenda, and it's just not working. Twisting what the Pope says only works on the weak minded. He hasn't said anything different than the last few Popes, whom you seem to strongly dislike. He's not going to change anything. He holds fast to the faith, doctrines and dogmas. Your snide remarks about John Paul II and Benedict XVI are quite frankly disgusting.

 

[Michie]

You have constantly pushed your agenda, and it's just not working. Twisting what the Pope says only works on the weak minded. He hasn't said anything different than the last few Popes, whom you seem to strongly dislike. He's not going to change anything. He holds fast to the faith, doctrines and dogmas. Your snide remarks about John Paul II and Benedict XVI are quite frankly disgusting.

I have to agree. Thinly veiled meaness is still just being mean. Explanations concerning what is taught on conscience is flatly rejected & called the "hierarchical position" when the truth is simply being stated. The Church teaches what She teaches. It is not a democracy. You either believe it or you don't but at least be honest about it. Don't cherry pick out of context & declare that relativism in the RCC is basically ok. It's false. Not true. And deceptive. Rules state we cannot go against the Catholic faith in this forum & we always seem to be doing so by skirting these things or twisting them to mean something they do not. Again, everyone should read the comments below the article.

 

[Davidnic]

There wasn't any value judgment or malice in my comment.

I recognize that people have different points of view and I accept that. I would, of course, appreciate it if that acceptance was returned.

Your voluminous posts seem to indicate that it is extremely and vitally important that this issue be buried once and for all so that people know that America Magazine and Father Martin did the world and the Church a disservice by publicizing it.

And you have partially succeeded. You have succeeded in convincing the people who already agree with you that Fr. Martin and the magazine did the world and the Church a disservice by publicizing it.

I did look up the theologian Bernhard Karig, CSsR. He died in 1988. He was never sanctioned or censured in any way. He wrote 80 books and 1000 articles and taught at many prestigious universities.


There is a reason why Father Karig and Father Martin and America Magazine haven't been censured, and forgive me for wondering if it isn't the same reason why you chose to bury their ideas in a pile of arcane references in books most of us don't have access to.

My voluminous posts indicate what is called research and not taking a quote at face value and looking at the source material.


Arcane references? Books? You mean books? And correct citations?

I am sorry but if you have a problem with sourcing a quote and direct and accurate citations then that is not my problem.

Burying and obfuscating something does not involve finding the correct source material and the quote as it exists. That is what is called transparency. Pointing the finger at the person getting the actual source material and providing the correct quote and saying that they are burying things...that is obfuscation.


So to sum up...books are arcane and get in the way of facts? Ok. We are going to disagree on that. I think books provide facts and actual quotes and provide accuracy that prevent people from manipulating facts.

So you can believe I am burying the issue by providing the actual correct quotation in context. That I am somehow anti-truth by reading and demanding that the things I read correctly and validly quote their sources. I think it is because people do not all have access to the volumes that people felt they could improperly source the quote out of context. That is obfuscation. As far as arcane. There are 3510 copies of this work available in the United States in Libraries alone. Another few thousand through sellers. Arcane works...generally are at or below book extinction level at less than 7 copies. So something numbering in the thousands for free use if you want to take the time to find it. Not arcane.

But I will continue to exercise my right to read and quote a source correctly. Even if providing the correct and accurate quote in context is....somehow covering up the....correct....and...accurate....quote...and...meaning. No really sure how that works.

And I am not saying the publishers did a disservice. The readers...maybe. Maybe. Since it took me 20 minutes to source this with an 18 month teething and playing a card came with a five year old while we all cleaned the kitchen....I will let people draw their own conclusions about the diligence of those who provide the quote without the full context or even a source notation for the location.

And I never maintained the article did not make valid points. What I am saying is that using that one Ratzinger quote as a crutch, which is what you did and not the writers, is not going to work to prove a point. And the quote is not sourced in the article. And when you find it properly...it does not back up what you are taking from the article. It backs up the view the Church has always had. So it is not about the article writers or magazine publishers, it is about how the quote is being interpreted.

But do I have a problem with un-sourced and out of context quotes in articles? I admit I do. I am funny that way. I prefer things that challenge my beliefs so they grow stronger and not inaccurate things that play to my prejudices and preconceptions.

 

[Davidnic]

Even in the article they point out what St. Thomas wrote:

“Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.”

Notice: "in ignorance of the true facts"

Basically for Conscience to be Prime it must be something that the Church is saying that is in opposition to what is True. Not something that we simply do not like or find difficult. Like Church says Iraq war is justified by just war....you can say no...that is not right. Notice the Church said the opposite about that war and did not support it. But when the Church says Birth Control is wrong or abortion is wrong or we must take care of the poor...we can not use conscience over that. Or if the Church said something against Her own Christology we could say...no, sorry not right.

It is not the article per se...it is how the article is being read. But it is sloppily written because it does not source all assertions appealing to outside works. And at least one is wrong.

 

[Davidnic]

And yes. Looking at it right now the quote directly says "For Newman."

So presenting it as his own thought rather than his interpretation of Newman's is wrong. Now that is not to say that Newman's thought does not carry weight. It just shows the proper source.

Oh and to add what follows when speaking of the council fathers:

"The fathers were obviously anxious (as, of course, was repeatedly shown in the debate on religious freedom also) not to allow an ethics of conscience to be transformed into the domination of subjectivism, and not to canonize a limitless situation ethics under the guise of conscience. On the contrary the conciliar text implies that obedience to conscience means and end to subjectivism, a turning aside from blind arbitrariness and produces conformity with objective norms of moral action."

Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. 5, H. Vorgrimler (ed.), 1969, Burns & Oates, London. P.135

And the Church is constant on what the objective norms of moral actions are. So conscience can not be, in the context of the quote you provide, an excuse for subjective moral action.

That is the quote and the context.

And since you say...I only have access...let me dispel any doubt as to the veracity of the quote:

 

[Davidnic]

So hopefully that answers your original statements concerning that quote.

There are a lot of quotes, and the quotes are what I was primarily interested in.

Including this quote from Joseph Ratzinger after Vatican II?

So the correct context shows the statements are made in the consistent teaching of the Church on how the Holy Spirit protects some things, constantly and without fail, from error. And we are only able to declare conscience prime when the things deviate from the two pillars of Scripture and Tradition. Not when our own wills conflict and then we make our will paramount to truth. The Holy Spirit has provided and protected the objective moral norms, and they do not conflict with conscience. When we try to put conscience up as a subjective guide rather than the informed true conscience, it is not doing as the quote, Newman, Pope Francis, St. Thomas or the Holy Spirit teaches. As you said it is hard to follow the Holy Spirit sometimes.

Or as the nuns in grammar school used to say:

"Leave room for the Holy Spirit."

I realize this is difficult for many of you.

But what we need to remember is the primacy of conscience does not allow us to claim the urging of will toward a subjective morality is the Holy Spirit. The Council is clear on that. As the proper context of the quote shows.

 

[Michie]

I applaud you David. The commitment to be thorough is commendable. I appreciate it.

 

[Fantine]

In the first place, I didn't "dislike" Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. My view of Pope John Paul II is pretty similar to the book, "The Pontiff in Winter," and it really made me feel a lot of compassion for him. His emotional scars from living under Communism basically made him believe that a totalitarian Church was the only defense against Communism, and also made him condemn what he called liberation theology and the Central American martyrs who now will most likely have their causes for canonization recognized and continued.

But I empathize with people who are wounded and scarred. I don't hate them.

I thought that Pope Benedict really grew into the role as Pope and threw off the role as enforcer well. He was much more pastoral than his advance billing would have indicated he would be. He was obviously a reluctant Pope, more a scholar than a ruler, and I appreciate that he stepped aside to make way for the future. If he had waited, Cardinal Bergoglio might have been too old to be elected, and he is obviously a one-in-a-millenium kind of person.

If the America article is polarizing, it's because good journalism is supposed to be polarizing. It's supposed to invite dialogue and discussion.

And it is unsurprising that the hierarchical approach to "dialogue and discussion" is to rapidly "shut it down."

The article specifically said that it did not condone relativism, but even the catechism recognizes that every action occurs within a context (in its section about what makes a sin 'mortal'). There are definitions of "sins," but since no contexts are attached, they are more accurately called "rules."

It even expands on something I have always personally believed, that even objectively good things can be 'sinful' if the context surrounding the actions are wrong.

But throughout history, those who have attacked the status quo are attacked by those who want to preserve it, and eventually the status quo moves over a tick.

You may call this article 'heretical.' Others would call it 'prophetic.'

 

[Davidnic]

Good journalism sources content and does not attribute a quote as a person's personal opinion when that person is commenting on what someone else was thinking.

The common person may not have immediate access to one of the thousands of copies of the volumes with the quote but someone writing an article can do the 15 min of research it takes to get it.

No one is shutting discussion down. If pointing out that the quote is in error and the full context directly argues against relativism of conscience, is shutting it down then it shuts it down because it is a blatant fallacy.

I guess it is bad we can read and then source material rather than accept the incorrect out of context quote as given. I prefer reading and questioning and research to accepting what I am told without thinking. Saying thinking about something and getting an accurate quote is somehow harmful is not the talk of transparency and dialog.


Conscience is indeed prime when properly formed and not prone to relativism and subjectivism. The Church has always taught that. And the quotes in the proper context, containing all vital parts and attributed properly are fine.

The problem is they are placed in a context that is directly opposite how they were said or written.

 

[Fantine]

And the idea that you looked at the article, disagreed with it immediately and off the cuff, and went off to find information that would support your preconceived opinion (and that of most of the other posters here) had no part in it at all?

 

[Davidnic]

And the idea that you looked at the article, disagreed with it immediately and off the cuff, and went off to find information that would support your preconceived opinion (and that of most of the other posters here) had no part in it at all?

I actually read the article before you posted it. And I have said it has points. I find it a bit sloppy but not merit-less. I did not go and seek it to prove what I wanted to believe. I went because the quote seemed off as it was used. And when I looked for it I kept seeing how it was used all over the internet in a truncated and ill sourced fashion.

But you are saying I am wrong for showing that the quote was out of context, misquoted and lacking a vital part. That is like saying someone is wrong when they find an error because someone wants so desperately to believe what the error says.

So it is not the error that is wrong it is the person who managed to read and find something the authors of the article should have found with the most cursory quality control.

You may think good articles contain misquotes and errors but, to me, accuracy of quotes central to the point is a criteria I require. I also have an issue if the proper quote is directly opposed to how the article is presented by many of the readers who champion it.

I did not immediately disagree with the article. I fact checked it. In fact checking it I found something a college freshmen would have been docked at least a letter grade for, maybe more. I help people with research, exposing poor lines of fact checking, verifying central points in research projects and expanding on the sources needed. It's my job. Habit of fact checking what I read is why I did it. Not an immediate disagreement with the content. But because the quote had a logical problem as presented that indicated the need to check it.

That the fact check went against what you wanted to present is not my fault.

 

[Davidnic]

The fact remains the quote can not be presented as the future B16 opinion. It is his commentary on what Newman thought. It is then followed by the comment that the council fathers wanted to also make sure people did not use the primacy of conscience as a license to subjectivism.

So the actual quote goes against how people are often presenting the quote.

No one should have a problem with accuracy unless their intent is dishonesty. Which I am sure is not the case.

You asked me about the quote in post #12:

Including this quote from Joseph Ratzinger after Vatican II?

I answered you.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Ah, OBOB. Where long-held Church teaching is just, like, your opinion, man.