Topic: Primacy of Conscience in Catholicism and Orthodoxy

[The Iambic Pen]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

[pmpn8rGPT]

sometimes your conscience might lead you away from the Church and into demons.  The ability to interpret is given to the Church not to individuals. 

[Nephi]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

Why would a Catholic ever teach that following one's conscience can allow one to violate Church teaching? That's like saying that Luther was completely justified because he believed he was following his conscience: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

As for the Orthodox view, I'm unsure as to the role of the conscience but I don't believe one could ever use the conscience as a ground for violating the Church's teachings. Otherwise, what would the point in having spiritual guides/fathers be if we could just use our own conscience as a guide?

[The Iambic Pen]

I'll have to bring up Martin Luther next time someone mentions conscience.

[choy]

My conscience is leading me to the Orthodox Church

[Father H]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

Our consciences can be seared, and so are not wholly reliable:

"Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron." (1 Tim 4.2). 

[Fabio Leite]

I don't remember which elder or saint, but the recomendation was "Don't follow your heart while it is not illumined yet", or something to that effect. While the heart is not pure it loves bad things also - and it is true love, only directed toward non-Godly or ungodly things.

[Fabio Leite]

Sinatra's "My Way" is a hymn to modern ideals, summing up all that people value and strive for. And how diametrically opposed to love, God and Orthodoxy that is.

Frank Sinatra My Way Lyrics
now, the end is here
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I'll say it clear
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain
I've lived a life that's full
I traveled each and ev'ry highway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way

Regrets, I've had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way

I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say, not in a shy way,
"Oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way"

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!

Yes, it was my way

[Azul]

I don't remember which elder or saint, but the recomendation was "Don't follow your heart while it is not illumined yet", or something to that effect. While the heart is not pure it loves bad things also - and it is true love, only directed toward non-Godly or ungodly things.

and how do you know when your heart is "illuminated" ?

i personally believe that whatever one seeks from pure undefiled conscience he will get to the head of it.. if your conscience tells you one thing than if you do the oposite you go against you and who you are.. what he believes(in his conscience, my emphasis) that is what he is, someone said..

[Fabio Leite]

We have to go against who we are often because who we are hates God. Loving God is not just saying prayers and going to Liturgy but to give up our own will and desires, empty ourselves to be with Him like He emptied himself to be with us.

An enlighted heart will know. If we don't then we aren't.

I don't remember which elder or saint, but the recomendation was "Don't follow your heart while it is not illumined yet", or something to that effect. While the heart is not pure it loves bad things also - and it is true love, only directed toward non-Godly or ungodly things.

and how do you know when your heart is "illuminated" ?

i personally believe that whatever one seeks from pure undefiled conscience he will get to the head of it.. if your conscience tells you one thing than if you do the oposite you go against you and who you are.. what he believes(in his conscience, my emphasis) that is what he is, someone said..

[choy]

We have to go against who we are often because who we are hates God. Loving God is not just saying prayers and going to Liturgy but to give up our own will and desires, empty ourselves to be with Him like He emptied himself to be with us.

An enlighted heart will know. If we don't then we aren't.

Nice.

[Cyrillic]

My conscience is leading me to the Orthodox Church

My concience is leading me into liking this post.

[Azul]

We have to go against who we are often because who we are hates God. Loving God is not just saying prayers and going to Liturgy but to give up our own will and desires, empty ourselves to be with Him like He emptied himself to be with us.

An enlighted heart will know. If we don't then we aren't.

I don't remember which elder or saint, but the recomendation was "Don't follow your heart while it is not illumined yet", or something to that effect. While the heart is not pure it loves bad things also - and it is true love, only directed toward non-Godly or ungodly things.

and how do you know when your heart is "illuminated" ?

i personally believe that whatever one seeks from pure undefiled conscience he will get to the head of it.. if your conscience tells you one thing than if you do the oposite you go against you and who you are.. what he believes(in his conscience, my emphasis) that is what he is, someone said..

Didn`t God make you the way you are?I mean your character/personality, your essence.. Why would you need to become something else and go against who you are?Didn`t God make you this way?Did he do a mistake?Didn`t God made you to be you?

who we are can hate an idea of God.

[Nephi]

Didn`t God make you the way you are?I mean your character/personality, your essence.. Why would you need to become something else and go against who you are?Didn`t God make you this way?Did he do a mistake?Didn`t God make you to be you?

Did you just forget the whole story of Adam and Eve? Why did Christ come again?

[Fabio Leite]

Exactly. The most forgotten teaching of Christianity (and Judaism) is that we are *not* who God made us to be. It's the "Broken Nature" cosmology. The Universe is not as God intended, we are not born as God intended. Jesus job was basically two: healing our broken nature and deifying it.

Didn`t God make you the way you are?I mean your character/personality, your essence.. Why would you need to become something else and go against who you are?Didn`t God make you this way?Did he do a mistake?Didn`t God make you to be you?

Did you just forget the whole story of Adam and Eve? Why did Christ come again?

[Azul]

Exactly. The most forgotten teaching of Christianity (and Judaism) is that we are *not* who God made us to be. It's the "Broken Nature" cosmology. The Universe is not as God intended, we are not born as God intended. Jesus job was basically two: healing our broken nature and deifying it.

Didn`t God make you the way you are?I mean your character/personality, your essence.. Why would you need to become something else and go against who you are?Didn`t God make you this way?Did he do a mistake?Didn`t God make you to be you?

Did you just forget the whole story of Adam and Eve? Why did Christ come again?

Uff.. Uff.. Christianity.. Christianity..

 Banned for creating a duplicate account.

[J Michael]

Sent to me (and a number of others) by a Byzantine Catholic priest of many years and much experience and used with his permission:

The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."

Emphases are mine.

[orthonorm]

I might have to write my goodbye letter here soon too.

Does anyone think anymore?

Some of these threads lately are embarrassingly trite.

Regardless of how you decide things it is always in virtue of your conscious once it is at a reflective level.

The Church is no one's conscious as such once subjectivity is in play. People might allow "the Church" (whatever that means to them, the Priest they decide to listen to, the part of the Bible they think is relevant, the Patristic literature they find to be helpful) to inform their decisions, but in the end the radical openness of subjectivity means that for all people, they are choosing.

Luther was right about a lot of things. I would highly suggest actually reading his work as a descriptive analysis of hermeneutics rather than a prescriptive one.

Then move on to all the research done in his wake.

The Church's "teaching" is always a matter of subjectivity. This is no weakness and the recoiling from the insights of modernity is no answer to the problem. Subjectivity must be radically thought through by the Church in light of primarily Trinitarian thought.

Can't get around it, once you have reflected upon that which you thinking.

[orthonorm]

Sent to me (and a number of others) by a Byzantine Catholic priest of many years and much experience and used with his permission:

The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."

Emphases are mine.

Keep the emphasis cause everyone agrees on the Church's teaching.

I mean some people don't, but they aren't really representative of Orthodoxy.

To see examples of people disagreeing about the Church and its teachings, check out this link:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/

[biro]

Oh noes!  Where's everybody going?

[orthonorm]

Oh noes!  Where's everybody going?

As much as it would please many, I was joking.

And if I did, there would be no letter. I find the whole dramatic board exit played out in Usenet circa 1989.

[The Iambic Pen]

Sent to me (and a number of others) by a Byzantine Catholic priest of many years and much experience and used with his permission:

The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."

Emphases are mine.

Thank you for the quote.

[J Michael]

I might have to write my goodbye letter here soon too.

Does anyone think anymore?

Some of these threads lately are embarrassingly trite.

Regardless of how you decide things it is always in virtue of your conscious once it is at a reflective level.

The Church is no one's conscious as such once subjectivity is in play. People might allow "the Church" (whatever that means to them, the Priest they decide to listen to, the part of the Bible they think is relevant, the Patristic literature they find to be helpful) to inform their decisions, but in the end the radical openness of subjectivity means that for all people, they are choosing.

Luther was right about a lot of things. I would highly suggest actually reading his work as a descriptive analysis of hermeneutics rather than a prescriptive one.

Then move on to all the research done in his wake.

The Church's "teaching" is always a matter of subjectivity. This is no weakness and the recoiling from the insights of modernity is no answer to the problem. Subjectivity must be radically thought through by the Church in light of primarily Trinitarian thought.

Can't get around it, once you have reflected upon that which you thinking.

The quote I posted was never meant to be the be all and end all on the subject of conscience (as opposed to conscious  ) but something to reflect upon.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church has quite a lot to say about conscience.  If you're at all interested in that point of view, here's one of several links: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1776 .  I'm pretty sure Orthodoxy has something to say about it, too  .

The Church's "teaching" is always a matter of subjectivity.

  Really?  Interesting.  Maybe you could deign to elaborate in terms that those of us not quite as intelligent and thoughtful as you might understand.

You don't know what your Church teaches?  I'll admit to probably huge gaps in my own knowledge, but *you*  . 

[J Michael]

Sent to me (and a number of others) by a Byzantine Catholic priest of many years and much experience and used with his permission:

The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."

Emphases are mine.

Thank you for the quote.

 

[Wyatt]

Following your conscience is important, but it is also important to conform your conscience to the teaching of the Church. If someone thinks that they are not ready to have a baby and decide, based on their conscience, that having an abortion is the best course of action...something is wrong. It doesn't matter whether their conscience told them it was right or not.

[orthonorm]

conscience (as opposed to conscious  )

When will my computer learn what I mean. If I had a dollar for every time I made this mistake I would be a millionaire.

[J Michael]

conscience (as opposed to conscious  )

When will my computer learn what I mean. If I had a dollar for every time I made this mistake I would be a millionaire.

Why spelling is important:

[orthonorm]

conscience (as opposed to conscious  )

When will my computer learn what I mean. If I had a dollar for every time I made this mistake I would be a millionaire.

Why spelling is important:

Nice!

My problem is that they are the same thing in any sane world and I forget the difference without a difference others lend to it and get stuck in one and never give up.

I think it is a muscle memory thing. I just the most recent spelling for the same thing.

Again, there is no difference between conscious and conscience once one looks at both in a meaningful fashion.

Also I tend to use synonyms and homonyms when typing (but not speaking or writing by hand) due to a head injury (last of a series of concussions). And typing is somehow more exhausting than it once was. It is the symptom that never seems to go away completely.

It is a bit embarrassing, but I have excepted it for what it is.


Yes, that last bit was attentional.

[neon_knights]

It is a bit embarrassing, but I have excepted it for what it is.

Yes, that last bit was attentional.

Zing!

Zing!

[J Michael]

It is a bit embarrassing, but I have excepted it for what it is.

Yes, that last bit was attentional.

Zing!

Zing!

Here ya go--take two, they're cheap  .

[Maria]

Hey, thanks for advertising those Zing bars .... barley and soy free! Sounds wonderful.

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

It sounds very modernistic to me. Such a teaching can lead a person to believe almost anything is right from gay marriage to murder under the guise of self-defense. Slippery slope?

On the other hand, I exited the Roman Catholic Church and then joined the Orthodox Church when I finally came to the enlightened conclusion that Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy were wrong after studying the documents of Vatican I and the history of that council.

[Jetavan]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St, Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

[domNoah]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

My Friend,

As a Catholic I can assure you that your instructors and assistants are completely wrong.  A Catholic is to conform his conscience to what the Church teaches.

[domNoah]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St, Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

[Jetavan]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St, Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

I studied St. Thomas when I was attending a Dominican Catholic university. Ascribing such garbage to St. Thomas is wrong.

People can have an ill formed conscience due to their own stupidity, but part of growing in humility, truth, and love, requires us to submit to authorities. If our pastors are not godly, but deceitful, and they attempt to mislead us, we the faithful will experience uneasiness.

Having felt this uneasiness myself with regard to the teachings of Vatican I (Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy) and Vatican II, especially some of the outrageous comments made by Catholic Answers in San Diego, I investigated further, and was lead into the Orthodox Church.

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

[Jetavan]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

Check the link in the quote; the whole paper is there.

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

Check the link in the quote; the whole paper is there.

I no longer have my copies of Summa.

It seems like Brian Lewis took St. Thomas way out of context. That is the problem with modern theologians. Orthodox Theologians are those who pray. Heterodox theologians like Brian Lewis do not know how to pray correctly. Hence, they arrive at false conclusions justifying extramarital sexual relations and homosexuality.

[Jetavan]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

Check the link in the quote; the whole paper is there.

I no longer have my copies of Summa.

It seems like Brian Lewis took St. Thomas way out of context. That is the problem with modern theologians. Orthodox Theologians are those who pray. Heterodox theologians like Brian Lewis do not know how to pray correctly.

Here's another comment on Aquinas and conscience:

"For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin."

And:

""Let your conscience be your guide," we say. That is true. The ultimate guide for each person in his moral decisions is his conscience. We must follow the dictates of a certain conscience -- even if it is erroneous."

[Melodist]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

Everytime I've heard a RC apologist speak on this subject, it's always coupled with the statement that one's conscience needs to be informed by and in line with the Church. By this standard, a truly informed conscience would not lead one to violate Church teaching.

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

Check the link in the quote; the whole paper is there.

I no longer have my copies of Summa.

It seems like Brian Lewis took St. Thomas way out of context. That is the problem with modern theologians. Orthodox Theologians are those who pray. Heterodox theologians like Brian Lewis do not know how to pray correctly.

Here's another comment on Aquinas and conscience:

"For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin."

And:

""Let your conscience be your guide," we say. That is true. The ultimate guide for each person in his moral decisions is his conscience. We must follow the dictates of a certain conscience -- even if it is erroneous."

You have given yet another link to another .com site, which is not an educational site.
Anyone with some money can set up a nifty .com site.

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm

This .com site is not worth the time. Furthermore, it is dangerous to read it.
Who is behind it?

[Maria]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What does Orthodoxy teach about the role of conscience?  If one believes a Church teaching is false, can one claim the guidance of conscience, and then proceed how they wish?

Thank you.

Everytime I've heard a RC apologist speak on this subject, it's always coupled with the statement that one's conscience needs to be informed by and in line with the Church. By this standard, a truly informed conscience would not lead one to violate Church teaching.

My informed conscience has led me to leave the Roman Catholic Church.

[Jetavan]

I have been participating in a Catholic RCIA class for the past few months (round two, after a previous attempt several years ago).  In the class, it has been brought up by the instructors and assistants that Catholics are obliged to follow their informed consciences, even if their conscience urges them to violate Church teaching.  I have been doing some studying on this issue, as I do not believe that is an accurate representation of Church teaching.

What are the references to this teaching?

If one has done one's best to inform the conscience, then one is morally obligated to follow the conscience, even if the conscience is objectively in error.

"Moral theology has attempted to convey the traditional doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience by referring to it as the proximate norm, the ultimate and supreme subjective measure of the goodness or evil of what we do. The force of this is that a correct conscience always obliges us to follow it. But it also means that, even if, because of unavoidable lack of knowledge, our conscience is erroneous, it still remains the immediate norm or measure of the morality of our action and must be followed, or at least not acted against.

St. Thomas Aquinas supports what he says on this point by a couple of rather startling illustrations. Not to have extramarital sex, he says, can be mistakenly seen as a bad thing. In this case one does wrong in refraining because one would then be prepared to choose what is seen as evil. For the same reason it would be wrong for someone, he says, to believe in Jesus Christ when this is erroneously apprehended as a bad thing. In doing so in either case, according to St. Thomas and the tradition of the Church, one would commit sin."

Do you have the citation from the Summa on that?

Footnote 11: Summa Theologiae I-II, I9, 5.

Who wrote that footnote?
Publication date?

Check the link in the quote; the whole paper is there.

I no longer have my copies of Summa.

It seems like Brian Lewis took St. Thomas way out of context. That is the problem with modern theologians. Orthodox Theologians are those who pray. Heterodox theologians like Brian Lewis do not know how to pray correctly.

Here's another comment on Aquinas and conscience:

"For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin."

And:

""Let your conscience be your guide," we say. That is true. The ultimate guide for each person in his moral decisions is his conscience. We must follow the dictates of a certain conscience -- even if it is erroneous."

You have given yet another link to another .com site, which is not an educational site.
Anyone with some money can set up a nifty .com site.

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm

This .com site is not worth the time. Furthermore, it is dangerous to read it.
Who is behind it?

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? 

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.