Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
newschoolman Wrote:LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it.
Could you please give quotes from sources about this right and duty to follow an invincible erroneous conscience. Because it makes sense to me. Why would any sane good-willed person do any that he truly believed was evil anyway? And is this truth not the reason why the Church has at least implied that it is possible for baptized non-Catholics (Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc) may attain salvation despite not formally being in Holy Mother Church? I don't see how God could be so hard on a soul who has been taught all his life a certain thing (like, say, that the Catholic Church is "the Whore of Babylon" or something) and then not come into the Catholic Church because of that. L A did you really think that ever soul instinctively knows the divine positive law? My pre-Vatican II moral theology textbook by Fr. John Laux seems to say different.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 12:16 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:04 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What schoolman is trying to claim (I think) is that the norm of morality can be contrary to truth in the case of a man who has an improperly formed conscience. What he fails to consider is that all men are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

You think?  I said it clearly.  The moral law commands that an honestly erroneous conscience be obeyed under pain of sin.  Look it up.  The moral duty has a corresponding right.  Nobody forgets the divine law -- and, we are talking about those who God holds morally blameless for their honest error.  God does not contradict Himself by commanding and forbidding the same thing.  Man is morally obliged to adhere to the Catholic faith in conformity to his conscience.  In fact, if one joins the Catholic Church against his conscience (certain that it is evil, for example) then he violates the moral law and commits a sin.   

I have looked it up. It is wrong. And it can't be squared with Ci Rice.

LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it.   

It is false. Conscience is not a little voice in your head that tells you what you should do.

A man has a moral right to act in conformity with the moral law. He has no right, in the strict sense of the term, to violate that law. A divine precept revealed to man constitutes a divine positive law. It is not possible to speak of a man's moral right to disregard or disobey such a divine precept.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

Nobody is talking about giving a command or forcing somebody to do something false or morally evil.  You are confused.  You should check out any standard manual of moral theology or ethics and you will see the tradition teaching on the moral duty to follow conscience under pain of sin (even when honestly erroneous).  If you deny that then we simply have no basis for discussion.    
Reply
lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it.
It is false. Conscience is not a little voice in your head that tells you what you should do.

A man has a moral right to act in conformity with the moral law. He has no right, in the strict sense of the term, to violate that law. A divine precept revealed to man constitutes a divine positive law. It is not possible to speak of a man's moral right to disregard or disobey such a divine precept.
Could you both please give sources for the exact statements you are saying? There ought to be some moral theology manual that explains this. I thought as Catholics we are bound to follow our conscience and what our intellects present to our wills as good, whether or not it is objectively good or not. What man would go against his own conscience but a sinner anyways? And is not a sinner strictly speaking merely one who goes against what his own conscience tells him is right and good? My catechism says that if you do something objectively good, honestly thinking it was evil, then you have sinned anyway.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 12:21 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it.
Could you please give quotes from sources about this right and duty to follow an invincible erroneous conscience. Because it makes sense to me. Why would any sane good-willed person do any that he truly believed was evil anyway? And is this truth not the reason why the Church has at least implied that it is possible for baptized non-Catholics (Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc) may attain salvation despite not formally being in Holy Mother Church? I don't see how God could be so hard on a soul who has been taught all his life a certain thing (like, say, that the Catholic Church is "the Whore of Babylon" or something) and then not come into the Catholic Church because of that. L A did you really think that ever soul instinctively knows the divine positive law? My pre-Vatican II moral theology textbook by Fr. John Laux seems to say different.

I already gave this one above)

Quote:An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)


Reply
newschoolman Wrote:I already gave this one above)
Quote:An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)
Yes. I saw that, newschoolman, and I thank you for it. That give one source at least. You do have any more sources for this doctrine of moral theology?
Reply
Here is another:

"A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience." (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)
Reply
...and another:

"Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error." (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)
Reply
...and another good one on the duty to obey conscience:

Quote:Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience. 

The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)

Reply
...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
Reply
newschoolman Wrote:...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
WOW!

Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)