Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 12:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 

But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.

There is no such thing as a moral duty with no corresponding moral right to fulfill the duty.  That is a contradiction.  Man has the moral right to do his moral duty.  That is why it is a sin to compel or coerce someone into joining the Church.

Which is why there can be no right to follow an erroneous conscience. Were not even discussing forcing someone to join the Church.

There is no moral duty to follow an erroneous conscience.

There is no right (or duty) to follow a VINCIBLE erroneous conscience.  An invinvibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed as stated above and as quoted by several authorities.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-05-2009, 12:18 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)