June 01, 2004
What is Conscience?
In recent days we hear the word conscience quite a bit. Politicians claim they must follow their conscience rather than church teaching when deciding on matters of life or death. But what is conscience? How can you know if your conscience is leading you down the right path?
Many times emotion or desire are confused with conscience. Conscience is not “what I want to do,” but rather “what I know I should do.” The Catechism states:
CCC 1778. Conscience is a judgement of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:Conscience is the law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, or a threat and a promise . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.
So conscience is an inherently moral concept and necessity. We use concepts to make moral decisions and to comprehend whether a decision is wrong or right. Conscience is the little voice in the back of our minds that consistently tells us what is right and wrong.
But, if conscience is the “voice of God” in our minds, how can someone suggest that his conscience forces him to vote pro-abortion? How can one suggest that his conscience will not allow him to forbid homosexual marriage? The key is in the formation of conscience. We are all responsible for learning truth and goodness and rejecting sin. The Catechism points out: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgements about acts to be performed or already committed.” (CCC 1790) So the conscience can make errors if we don’t properly inform and/or form our conscience:
CCC 1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
So when a man suggests his conscience is forcing him to make an obviously erroneous decision on morals, he is really revealing the state of his personal religious life. The person has either ignored the responsibility to find out what is true and good or his habitual sin has dulled and possibly blinded his conscience. The Catechism goes on to clarify the source of errors in moral conduct:
CCC 1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
The problem with American spirituality is its selfishness. We all seem to believe we are personally just under the Holy Spirit in terms of rank or that we know what the Holy Spirit really wants (no matter that His Church says differently). Obedience to truth is a weakness in the American blend of religion, and those that invent new materialistic doctrines are seen as brilliant (after all, the open the way of sin to more people). Clearly, the first mistake in forming your conscience is often the decision to reject the authority and teaching of God’s Church. This is something we should all keep in mind - along with humility.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
This article appeared in Catholic Online and bears reading.
Democrats wooing dumbed down Catholics
4/19/2004 - 5:30 AM PST
By Barbara Kralis
The real title of this column, if we want to get rough (and we do) might be "Dumbed down Catholics voting for dumbed down Kerry." Or, "Welcome to Kerry's party for dummies." Allow me to explain why the dumbing down of U.S. Catholic laity is likely to win the 2004 Presidential Race for John Kerry.
Catholics worldwide numbered 1.07 billion in 2002, and more than half of them are in The Americas, says the 2004 Pontifical Yearbook. In the U.S., 65 million Catholics make up 25% of the nation's population and will result in 27% of the votes in this November 2004 election.
One survey reveals that 70% of all U.S. Catholics are still undecided how they will vote, even though their Pope has warned them that the act of abortion is an act of murder and one cannot vote for abortion. The Kerry campaign is most aware of these statistics of wishy washy or lukewarm Catholics. A significant part of Kerry's support in his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire came from Catholic supporters.
Some pollsters call Catholics the 'swing vote,' meaning they're more diverse in their loyalties, voting less for the Democrat 'abortion' Party than they did 50 years ago when the party was pro life, pro family, pro America. Faithful Mass attending Catholics agree that the party is dead and gone and no longer represents their beliefs.
While Kerry wants Catholics to reestablish their old Democratic ties, his staffers are pulling out all the stops to keep current Catholics supporters from leaving the party.
Statisticians also tell us that it's the Catholic vote that determines who wins presidential races anymore, that the majority of Catholics still have loyalties to the Democrat party. But Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center said, "Catholics don't vote as a bloc, they are as varied as Protestant voters or any other voters.''
The obvious question one next asks is, "How can any 'real' Christian, who truly accepted Christ as the only Savior of the world and is acting accordingly, still be affiliated with the official abortion and sodomite party?" The answer is simply that pro abortion Democrats are successfully wooing dumbed down Catholics into thinking their party is in line with Church teachings. How are the Democrats doing this?
They're doing it with the help, directly or indirectly, of most of the Catholic hierarchy. Let me explain.
There are 71 pro abortion 'Catholics' legislators in U.S. Congress and 415 pro abortion 'Catholic' state legislators. These legislators, week after week, continue to receive the Eucharist (sacrilegiously) in many (not all) dioceses nationwide. Except for two courageous bishops, Archbishop Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz, no other bishops have placed canonical sanctions against these pro abortion legislators. This send the clear message those Catholics in the pews that it's perfectly alright to vote for abortion and still be a Catholic in good standing.
Another way Democrats will try to win, or con, Catholic voters is their preparation a 'Catholic Voting Scorecard' in an effort to show that Catholic Democratic lawmakers have adhered more closely to the position of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy on key issues than their Catholic Republican counterparts. Of course, this will take much chicanery on Kerry's part. The preliminary scorecard does not include any Republican social justice issues such as school vouchers or faith-based initiatives. Are Catholics catechized sufficiently to see through the Democrats' theological deceptions? I predict they are not.
Sadly, most any Catholic, age 60 years or younger, who received a 'Catholic' education in many of the 9,500 U.S. Catholic elementary and high schools, 235 Catholic colleges or universities, suffer the most ignorance of faith due to radically anti-Catholic, pro sodomite curricular studies in place. This is most prevalent at Jesuit institutions of higher education.
In addition, most all other baptised and confirmed Catholics who have gone through typical parish educational courses such as RCIA, CCD programs, Marriage Preparation classes, have not been properly catechized in the Catholic faith due to sorely lacking teachers and programs, with some programs actually teaching heresies. Therefore, the Church has several generations of dumbed down Catholics who are extremely vulnerable to rejecting or doubting revealed truths of the faith out of ignorance. Incidentally, anyone guilty of the crime of teaching heresy incurs excommunication 'ipso facto' ('by the very fact' or automatically).
Catholic author Ken C. Jones' recent book, 'Index of Leading Catholic Indicators' shows that only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent lay religious teachers believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent teachers believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent lay religious teachers believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus. Therefore, if you and I do the math, only 25-30% of the U.S. 65 million Catholics are faithful.
Welcome to the era of proportionalism, or Catholicism 'lite.' Too many Catholics nationwide, and let's not exclude many of our Church hierarchy, suffer the condition of a faith that purports "if it feels good, it can't be morally wrong anymore." Thus, we have the dumbing down of already lukewarm Catholics to the mental level of a Texas armadillo (not that I intend to degrade the hairy bellied armadillo's intelligence).
Many Catholics have out rightly rejected faith, reason and truth, replacing it with false proportionalism preached from modernist bishops/clergy, pro abortion politicians, wealthy sports figures, and sodomite television sitcoms. There is a crisis of faith because there is a crisis of truth. Thus, John Kerry's message of a false Catholicism easily leads the dumbed down astray.
For example, Associated Press reported recently, "Kerry says he is personally opposed to abortion, but supports the rights of others to make that choice. Kerry argues that church doctrine allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to choose that stance." Oh, really?
As a Catholic legislator, Kerry's obligation to stop abortion is clearly defined by Church teachings, contrary to what Kerry falsely claims. Pope Pius XI, in his more relevant than ever landmark encyclical, warns (this will give you chills):
"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority ... to defend the lives of the innocent ... among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates ... do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven" (Casti Connubii §67).
More recently, Pope John Paul II exhorted all Christians, including Kerry, that they cannot support abortion ever, but instead must do everything to oppose abortion and pro abortion legislation:
"Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true morally binding civil law. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginning of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities, but at the same time it firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than man' " (Evangelium vitae §72-73).
Dissenting Catholic politicians' false statements, such as John Kerry’s, seem to carry more weight with dumbed down Catholics than all of the Popes since St. Peter.
If we are truly to be Catholic, we must understand & know our faith through church teachings and the Magisterium. We cannot accept a watered down gospel. God is the Author of Life, the Supreme Authority. Let's keep that in mind when we mistake conscience for our own will.
Abundant blessings,
Donna
Thanks for the clarification on the issue of conscience.
I would like to emphasize two points from your post:
1. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the conscience can err is most definitely NOT infallible. Thus, those who claim to be following their conscience cannot use this as evidence that they are doing the right thing.
2. If a conscience is in error, the person must still follow their conscience and those who see the errors must help the wayward properly form their conscience rather rather than take the seemingly easier route of dismissing conscience.
Many years ago in Canada, we had the unfortunate situation that our bishops put out a document (called the Winnepeg Statement which supposedly clarified Humanae Vitae) which explicitly stated that a faithful Catholic could in good conscience use artificial contraception if they honestly arrived at an informed decision. While this statement is technically correct because one cannot honestly make an informed decision to use contraception, the laity interpreted this to mean that one could honestly make an informed decision to use contraception.
When pressed, the bishops admitted that the document was poorly worded and easily misinterpreted, they never retracted it. So what we have is uninformed laity saying it is ok. Informed laity saying it is not ok. But the informed laity appear to contradict the Canadian Bishops (thus undermining the credibility of the informed laity). And unfortunately, in all the fuss, Humane Vitae is all but forgotten.
There was never any need for the Canadian bishops to even try and clarify what was in Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae was clear, concise, and correct. The Winnepeg statement was wordier and if we extend the benefit of the doubt to the bishops and say that the statement was not incorrect, then it was most certainly unclear.
Posted by: Richard Wan at June 3, 2004 09:03 PM
