Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
I think it compliments the following with respect to the binding charater of a certain conscience -- even when honestly erroneous:

=========================

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)

=========================

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)

=========================

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) 

============================

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)

==============================

To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
Reply
I think this is utterly ridiculous because we all are going to find out how much we ourselves have been invincibly ignorant in our lives at each of our deaths and what will we have to show for this thread? I hope not merely an argument that there's no such thing as inculpable error, when in fact we ourselves may well be. It makes me think of our Lord's words about how we judge is how we will be judged. I want God to be merciful to me and not even see my objective errors that I sincerely believed were truths. I want all my errors despelled also of course. Think if we are wrong on some particular religious fact and God ignores that error of ours and saves us, how are we going to feel? God is all-knowing and sees our heart, not our inculpable ignorance of the truth. I think Pope Leo XIII encyclical on Liberty would be a good read for all of us, he mentions how the intellect can present an object to the will as good when in fact it is objective evil. This is fallen human nature. We have lost the infused knowledge of truth and goodness, especially on spiritual matters.
Reply
(06-20-2009, 03:21 AM)GodFirst Wrote: I think this is utterly ridiculous because we all are going to find out how much we ourselves have been invincibly ignorant in our lives at each of our deaths and what will we have to show for this thread? I hope not merely an argument that there's no such thing as inculpable error, when in fact we ourselves may well be. It makes me think of our Lord's words about how we judge is how we will be judged. I want God to be merciful to me and not even see my objective errors that I sincerely believed were truths. I want all my errors despelled also of course. Think if we are wrong on some particular religious fact and God ignores that error of ours and saves us, how are we going to feel? God is all-knowing and sees our heart, not our inculpable ignorance of the truth. I think Pope Leo XIII encyclical on Liberty would be a good read for all of us, he mentions how the intellect can present an object to the will as good when in fact it is objective evil. This is fallen human nature. We have lost the infused knowledge of truth and goodness, especially on spiritual matters.

We are discussing what CATHOLIC teaching is on this subject.

The fact that an evil could be done by an inculpably ignorant person is well known...the idea that the this person has a right to do this objectively evil act is what is novel...and wrong.
Reply
(06-17-2009, 11:23 PM)newschoolman Wrote: I think it compliments the following with respect to the binding charater of a certain conscience -- even when honestly erroneous:

=========================

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)

=========================

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)

=========================

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) 

============================

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)

==============================

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

"Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929, p. 314" Wrote:"For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin. Example: A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant."

This, of course. does not mean that all Catholics have a right to join a Protestant sect and that they have a right to not be disturbed in doing so.

Reply
(06-22-2009, 12:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-17-2009, 11:23 PM)newschoolman Wrote: I think it compliments the following with respect to the binding charater of a certain conscience -- even when honestly erroneous:

=========================

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)

=========================

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)

=========================

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) 

============================

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)

==============================

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

"Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929, p. 314" Wrote:"For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin. Example: A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant."

This, of course. does not mean that all Catholics have a right to join a Protestant sect and that they have a right to not be disturbed in doing so.

Right.  Catholics have a duty to form their conscience in conformity with the teaching of the Magisterium.
Reply
(06-22-2009, 03:26 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-22-2009, 12:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-17-2009, 11:23 PM)newschoolman Wrote: I think it compliments the following with respect to the binding charater of a certain conscience -- even when honestly erroneous:

=========================

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)

=========================

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)

=========================

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) 

============================

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)

==============================

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

"Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929, p. 314" Wrote:"For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin. Example: A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant."

This, of course. does not mean that all Catholics have a right to join a Protestant sect and that they have a right to not be disturbed in doing so.

Right.  Catholics have a duty to form their conscience in conformity with the teaching of the Magisterium.

"Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929, p. 314" Wrote:"For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin. Example: A Protestant, taught to believe that the teachings of the Church are idolatrous, superstitious and absurd, is not blamed for not accepting them."

This, of course. does not mean that all Protestants have a right to remain in a Protestant sect and that they have a right to not be disturbed in doing so.

McHugh and Callan is saying that sin is excused in the case of invincible ignorance. The SIN is excused...this is in no way an approbation of heretical sects (they have no right to exist) and to include them into the body of the Church in some sort of "imperfect communion".
Reply
One has a moral RIGHT to fulfill his moral DUTIES.  In other words, when an erring conscience BINDS then one has a moral RIGHT to obey it.  One has a RIGHT not to SIN.  There is nothing in your selected quote that suggests anything to the contrary.  It is not a so-called "right to error" -- but a RIGHT to obey a certain conscience that binds under pain of sin -- in spite of honest error.
Reply
(06-22-2009, 06:09 PM)newschoolman Wrote: One has a moral RIGHT to fulfill his moral DUTIES.  In other words, when an erring conscience BINDS then one has a moral RIGHT to obey it.  One has a RIGHT not to SIN.  There is nothing in your selected quote that suggests anything to the contrary.  It is not a so-called "right to error" -- but a RIGHT to obey a certain conscience that binds under pain of sin -- in spite of honest error.

And the civil authority has a right to supress religious error. They are required to tolerate these errors when the natural law or the common good is at stake. DH says the civil authorities must tolerate religious error.

You and I must follow a certain conscience. We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Reply
(06-23-2009, 09:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-22-2009, 06:09 PM)newschoolman Wrote: One has a moral RIGHT to fulfill his moral DUTIES.  In other words, when an erring conscience BINDS then one has a moral RIGHT to obey it.  One has a RIGHT not to SIN.  There is nothing in your selected quote that suggests anything to the contrary.  It is not a so-called "right to error" -- but a RIGHT to obey a certain conscience that binds under pain of sin -- in spite of honest error.

And the civil authority has a right to supress religious error. They are required to tolerate these errors when the natural law or the common good is at stake. DH says the civil authorities must tolerate religious error.

You and I must follow a certain conscience. We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Yes, the civil authorities have the duty and right to repress error when the common good is at stake (e.g., violations of natural moral law).  But there is no right to repress religious error that does not violate natural moral law and the common good.  See Suarez.... 

“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)
Reply
(06-23-2009, 11:11 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 09:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-22-2009, 06:09 PM)newschoolman Wrote: One has a moral RIGHT to fulfill his moral DUTIES.  In other words, when an erring conscience BINDS then one has a moral RIGHT to obey it.  One has a RIGHT not to SIN.  There is nothing in your selected quote that suggests anything to the contrary.  It is not a so-called "right to error" -- but a RIGHT to obey a certain conscience that binds under pain of sin -- in spite of honest error.

And the civil authority has a right to supress religious error. They are required to tolerate these errors when the natural law or the common good is at stake. DH says the civil authorities must tolerate religious error.

You and I must follow a certain conscience. We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Yes, the civil authorities have the duty and right to repress error when the common good is at stake (e.g., violations of natural moral law).  But there is no right to repress religious error that does not violate natural moral law and the common good.  See Suarez.... 

“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

You and I must follow a certain conscience (to avoid sin). We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)