I think the problem both Greg and bornagain Catholic has with what I wrote in the first blog, comes from the need to distinguish between objective and subjective truth; that is the whole point of 1782…that we, all of us, after careful study of the Church’s teaching, must follow our own conscience…subjective though it obviously is.
But what about confession? The sacrament of reconciliation is not to be avoided, when following the dictates of conscience. This sacrament is a powerful source of grace, and Lord knows, we all have plenty of sins we can confess without including those things which are not in violation of conscience! One obviously should not “confess” something which, in the privacy and primacy of his own conscience, he does not believe to be a sin! If a person did so, the confessor would have to conclude that the penitent believes it is a sin and acts accordingly In all haste, I would add one caveat to all this: Because the conclusion reached by the sincere examination of conscience on the part of one person is, by its very nature, subjective and personal, it should not to be “taught” to others in opposition to the objective and universal nature of the Church’s official teaching. That would be an egregious and probably sinful distortion of the Church’s teaching regarding the freedom of individual conscience.
In the illustration above, for example, it would be wrong for a woman to effectively “teach” her position regarding that moral issue to others, representing it as Catholic. Just as she should not mention it in confession, she should also not tell others to follow her example. She should consider this matter as something between God and herself, strictly personal and confidential.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Freedom of Conscience
A Little Known Truth About Catholicism: She respects FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Most practicing Catholics seem unaware of the fact that Catholics do have the right to take exception to a teaching of the Church…they are unaware of the Church’s own teaching regarding freedom of conscience in the determination of culpability regarding actions taken in opposition to her teaching.
In the current Catholic Catechism, one reads:
#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.
Holy Mother Church knows how easily we can practice self deception, so she adds a wise caveat:
#1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Truly our conscience is not formed in a vacuum and we are constantly bombarded by the “teachings” of the world. And, as loyal Catholics, we must be as well informed about the Church’s formal teaching. But, in the end, all things considered, if the individual believes in his heart of hearts that a given act is not a sin in a particular instance, for him/herself.he MUST obey conscience! The decision of conscience obviously is confined to the individual person and does not apply to others.
Take for example: A very devout Catholic woman divorces a battering spouse and, after trying to live singly and celibate, unexpectedly finds herself in love with a wonderful man. She talks to her parish priest about it. He simply tells her what the Church’s official position is and she leaves crestfallen. She earnestly prays for guidance, and after a considerable time elapses, decides that marrying the second man “outside the Church” would not be wrong, and she does it. She continues going to Mass regularly, but denies herself Holy Communion because the Church says she has committed a sin. But is it all that clear…cut and dried, as it were. I maintain, as a Contrarian Catholic, that she should not refrain from Communion because in her own conscience, marrying and cohabiting with the second man who is totally loving and supportive of her, is absolutely not wrong…in fact, the best thing she ever did.
That is the way I understand instructions 1782 and 1783 in the Catechism. I would respectfully consider any opinion in opposition to this understanding.
Most practicing Catholics seem unaware of the fact that Catholics do have the right to take exception to a teaching of the Church…they are unaware of the Church’s own teaching regarding freedom of conscience in the determination of culpability regarding actions taken in opposition to her teaching.
In the current Catholic Catechism, one reads:
#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.
Holy Mother Church knows how easily we can practice self deception, so she adds a wise caveat:
#1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Truly our conscience is not formed in a vacuum and we are constantly bombarded by the “teachings” of the world. And, as loyal Catholics, we must be as well informed about the Church’s formal teaching. But, in the end, all things considered, if the individual believes in his heart of hearts that a given act is not a sin in a particular instance, for him/herself.he MUST obey conscience! The decision of conscience obviously is confined to the individual person and does not apply to others.
Take for example: A very devout Catholic woman divorces a battering spouse and, after trying to live singly and celibate, unexpectedly finds herself in love with a wonderful man. She talks to her parish priest about it. He simply tells her what the Church’s official position is and she leaves crestfallen. She earnestly prays for guidance, and after a considerable time elapses, decides that marrying the second man “outside the Church” would not be wrong, and she does it. She continues going to Mass regularly, but denies herself Holy Communion because the Church says she has committed a sin. But is it all that clear…cut and dried, as it were. I maintain, as a Contrarian Catholic, that she should not refrain from Communion because in her own conscience, marrying and cohabiting with the second man who is totally loving and supportive of her, is absolutely not wrong…in fact, the best thing she ever did.
That is the way I understand instructions 1782 and 1783 in the Catechism. I would respectfully consider any opinion in opposition to this understanding.
The One True Church
Il Papa has gotten himself in a bit of a twist with the secular world with his latest pronouncement regarding the unique status of the Roman Church relative to all the other eccesiastical Christian groupings. I would have been surprised if this had not been the reaction of the world, which is awash in relativistic materialism.
For any organization in today's world to lay such a claim...to state it flat out like that, has to inflame a world so used to politicians who dice up everything in such a way as to backtrack with the least amount of negative reaction. In a "politically correct" society, where everything has to carry qualifyers and disclaimers, etc., this kind of "in your face" pronouncement must seem terribly discomfiting.
But...even as a Contrarian Catholic, I hear Benedict's no-give voice with a certain amount of pride, confirming my decision in my nineteenth year of life, deciding to forego the "feel good" religion of my birth. That I can take issue with a few teachings (stress: not doctrines!) is, in itself, testimony to the superiority (yes, I dare say it!) of the mother church of Christianity, teaching the supremacy of individual conscience.
For any organization in today's world to lay such a claim...to state it flat out like that, has to inflame a world so used to politicians who dice up everything in such a way as to backtrack with the least amount of negative reaction. In a "politically correct" society, where everything has to carry qualifyers and disclaimers, etc., this kind of "in your face" pronouncement must seem terribly discomfiting.
But...even as a Contrarian Catholic, I hear Benedict's no-give voice with a certain amount of pride, confirming my decision in my nineteenth year of life, deciding to forego the "feel good" religion of my birth. That I can take issue with a few teachings (stress: not doctrines!) is, in itself, testimony to the superiority (yes, I dare say it!) of the mother church of Christianity, teaching the supremacy of individual conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)