Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-04-2009, 07:47 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:30 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The conscience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
huh? What? Please explain? Are you saying an person's conscience cannot be invincibly ignorant?
My post explained itself. I'm sorry that you do not understand.

Please, help me. How are you helping this thread if you won't explain yourself.
Just because the conscience was created to oppose evil, does not mean that it will always recognize evil. Hence the reason why a person can sin objectively but not subjectively. No? Is the conscience not to be guided by law (or teaching)?
I think your moral theology might be a little twisted, but then I'm only human like you and could be wrong. That is why I so wish you would explain.

I apologize if I am a hindrance to this thread; I don't mean to be.

But allow me to explain what I mean...

You said:

"It's not OBJECTIVELY opposed to any RIGHTFUL IMFORMED conscience. But consciences can be misinformed or taught error and believe those errors as truth."

I simply do not agree. Maybe I am wrong, but if a truly objective (having no bias to any condition) conscience is allowed by God Himself to believe that which offends Him, then God would cease to send that person the grace to seek the Truth which He has bound us to seek. One may be honestly mistaken about the Truth (using false reason and logic or be honestly misinformed), but the conscience is a gift from God and cannot be led astray by the teachings of false religion. This is false ecumenism. A conscience in cooperation with grace always seeks Truth and does not rest content until it finds it.

If this were not so, then there would be no such thing as Objective Truth, only moral conviction. We would then be permitted to define Truth according to our cultural influences and religious backgrounds. An objective conscience does not subject (subjective: opposite of objective) itself to the influence of teaching. If one's conscience does not strongly compel one to seek Truth then this is the proximate result of the soul's rejection of God's grace - this is hardly an excuse for error.

Does this make sense?

Edit: My deplorable spelling.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by INPEFESS - 06-04-2009, 09:06 PM



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)