Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(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.    

Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-05-2009, 12:25 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)