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)

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.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-05-2009, 10:27 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)