Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 10:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 04:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 01:00 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
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?

Yes, actually.  To knowingly violate one's conscience is a sin.

But I don't think that one can say that there is a right to follow one’s "conscience", if it involves a transgression of the moral law. Schoolman is saying there is a duty to follow one’s conscience, even if it is in error…and it matters not what that error might be.

The proper definition of conscience is needed here.

The moral law obliges us to follow a "certain" conscience -- whether correct or erring.  Now the moral law can't command and forbid the same thing -- God does not contradict Himself.  In other words the moral law confers the moral right to fulfill ones moral duties.  Is that a so-called "right to error"?  No way.  It is only a right to act morally and avoid sin -- in spite of the honest error.  The error is "tolerated" by virtue of the "superior" good of acting morally and in confomity with a certain conscience.


Reply
(06-05-2009, 10:27 AM)newschoolman Wrote: The moral law obliges us to follow a "certain" conscience -- whether correct or erring.  Now the moral law can't command and forbid the same thing -- God does not contradict Himself.  In other words the moral law confers the moral right to fulfill ones moral duties.  Is that a so-called "right to error"?  No way.  It is only a right to act morally and avoid sin -- in spite of the honest error.  The error is "tolerated" by virtue of the "superior" good of acting morally and in confomity with a certain conscience.

Therefore, man has a right to [due] freedom of conscience -- in order to fufill his moral obligations in view of his last end.  Is the right unlimited and unqualified?  No, only God's rights are absolute.  Therefore, natural rights always have natural limits:

Quote:Man’s right to moral integrity is violated in the following ways:
By refusing him due freedom of conscience.  The right to be free to follow conscience has first a negative aspect.  No one may be compelled to do what his conscience says is wrong, not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous.  The right is inalienable; no one may surrender it since it is necessary in order to fulfill the absolute obligation of avoiding evil.  It is indefeasible and may not be taken away by any authority.  To do so would deprive the individual of an essential means to his last end…But must a man always be free to do what conscience says must be done?  He should be so free except when the act would militate against the common good or the equivalent good of another person.  (Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, TAN Publishers, 1958, 1992, pp. 353-354)
Reply
Quote:"not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous."

I think what is missing here is the fact that one cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law.

Reply
(06-05-2009, 10:51 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:"not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous."

I think what is missing here is the fact that one cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law.

I have always thought so -- at least the primary precepts of the natural law insofar as they are hard-wired in man.  For example, there is no such thing as a honest conscience that commands us to worship God by way of human sacrifice or by means manifestly opposed to the basic precepts of the natural law.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 11:01 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 10:51 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:"not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous."

I think what is missing here is the fact that one cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law.

I have always thought so -- at least the primary precepts of the natural law insofar as they are hard-wired in man.  For example, there is no such thing as a honest conscience that commands us to worship God by way of human sacrifice or by means manifestly opposed to the basic precepts of the natural law.

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

Also, it appears to me (from what I have read of St. Thomas), that only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance".
Reply
"To force a conscience is not always a violation, far from it."  (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 11)
Reply
(06-05-2009, 11:12 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:01 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 10:51 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:"not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous."

I think what is missing here is the fact that one cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law.

I have always thought so -- at least the primary precepts of the natural law insofar as they are hard-wired in man.  For example, there is no such thing as a honest conscience that commands us to worship God by way of human sacrifice or by means manifestly opposed to the basic precepts of the natural law.

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

Also, it appears to me (from what I have read of St. Thomas), that only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance".

The natural law and positive divine law are distinct.  The general precepts of the natural law are "promulgated" by being hard-wired into our very nature.  The divine law is promulgated very differently and this is the mission of the Church.  Man is morally bound to accept it only after being convinced that it is true.  Again, if he joins the Church thinking it evil then he sins.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 11:29 AM)Underdog Wrote: "To force a conscience is not always a violation, far from it."  (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 11)

Correct, there are [due limits] as stated above:

Man’s right to moral integrity is violated in the following ways:
By refusing him due freedom of conscience.  The right to be free to follow conscience has first a negative aspect.  No one may be compelled to do what his conscience says is wrong, not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous.  The right is inalienable; no one may surrender it since it is necessary in order to fulfill the absolute obligation of avoiding evil.  It is indefeasible and may not be taken away by any authority.  To do so would deprive the individual of an essential means to his last end…But must a man always be free to do what conscience says must be done?  He should be so free except when the act would militate against the common good or the equivalent good of another person.  (Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, TAN Publishers, 1958, 1992, pp. 353-354)

Reply
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).
Reply
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)