Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-07-2009, 06:40 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)


Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)


Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  


An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)


To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)

Those do not address the distinction made. Invincible: unable to be overcome or subdued.

God's grace can and does overcome and subdue untruth and error. All is vincible to God's grace. The invincible erroneous conscience is invincible only to the intellect. To say that the intellect cannot be overcome by grace is false.

Is this where "the debate was forfeited many pages ago"? :) If so, let's get back to it.

"CE" Wrote:"The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience"; and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience." Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the Fourth Lateran Council says, "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedificat ad gehennam." . . . The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aborigrinal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

I mean no offense to anyone and am not referring to anyone specifically, but this debate is never going to reach a conclusion so long as the principle issues are consistently ignored.

The role of God’s grace in the conscience of every soul is not being considered, and my posts stating that this is so have been repeatedly ignored. It is an oversight absolutely detrimental to the conclusion of the debate.

Unfortunately, there was no single post that threw the debate off course; I’m afraid the point has been repeatedly sacrificed in favor of distractions since its beginning. Rather than address the trunk, we’re debating the twigs. 

Thank you for the citation from the CE. Hopefully, it clears things up. 

Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by INPEFESS - 06-08-2009, 06:22 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)