Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-05-2009, 10:43 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)