Vatican II’s teaching is clear and we keep finding ourselves to be returning to it – assent must be given to the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium (obsequium religiosum) (LG 25) in matters of faith and morals. That seems to be one thing that separates a Catholic in union with the Holy See from a separated Christian.

I agree with you that Catholicism is essentially disregarding or overcoming your own conscience and relying on Church teaching. If truth exists, and you attempt to find it through your own ways, then I suppose you would no longer be considered truly Catholic, and would probably fit better into another branch of Christianity.

If a person through their conscience comes to a conclusion on a matter that is differs, even slightly, from Church teaching – does that qualify their conscience as ‘unformed’?

What if that “higher authority” is Rev. Sean Fagan?

In my experience most people who claim to be following their own conscience simply substitute the authority of a preferred expert in place of the Church’s magisterium.

Certainly we must follow our properly formed conscience. Disregarding the Church’s moral teachings cannot be excused through an appeal to the primacy of conscience because Catholics must follow the teachings of Vatican II by giving assent (obsequium religiosum) to the magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Truth exists. At this point the conversation moves into a discussion of the natural moral law which binds the conscience.

Firstly, you are quite right that there are no doctrincal changes between Vatican I and II – and so teachings was a bad choice of word on my part. There are changes in the way the Church communicates with the world around it though, which have lead on to the teachings being reinterpreted or misinterpreted depending on your point of view.

Why did the Church have this change of attitude, for want of a better word? Was it an attempt to modernise the institution, to make it more acceptable to take in other faiths? Why was it neccessary to change, or to give the appearance of change, when nothing did?

With regards to the quote by Sean Fagan, SM – for me it inspired and captivated the spirit of this discussion. I think that the only way to truly understand something is to form a balanced opinion of it – by conversing and questioning instead of simply submitting to authority. I think that too often, people can just quote a Pope or Bishop and believe that it settles a matter – I believe everyone should have a place to share their views, to hammer out their thoughts, and to be listened to, instead of simply buried with quotes from a higher authority.

I fully acknowledged that the conscience can be erroneous in my last reply. And yet former Cardinal Ratzinger asserts that it is ‘undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience’

What is this ‘certain conscience’? Am I just being told, in a very nice way, that I must never follow or trust my own conscience?

Given your response, I take it that you believe that your own concience is simply an illusion? This is the point I struggle with, and hopefully you will be able to throw some light on it.

“Church leaders must remember that the ninety-nine per cent of Church members who are not popes, bishops or priests are equally temples of the Holy Spirit, who speaks through their faith and personal experience.’

I don’t see where there is anything helpful here. It doesn’t present anything new. The bishops know the lay faithful are also temples of the Holy Spirit and the bishops know that the laity speak through faith and with the knowledge of their own personal experiences and the bishops know that the Holy Spirit can make His intentions known through the laity.

How does this help the conversation?

“However, if a person engages with an issue, and informs their conscience, despite what others might think, they should act upon their findings.”

Except that conscience can be erroneous. The primacy of conscience is often used to mask obstinacy.

You added:

“Likewise, as shown in the article you linked to Lmaher, the teachings of the Church mutate and evolve, reflecting societal, historical and theological change. The change in teachings can be observed by looking at the differences between the first and second Vatican Councils.”

I don’t see any changed teachings between the 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils. In fact, V2 goes to great pains to indicate that it reiterates the teachings brought forward in previous councils including Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. Contingencies change to be sure – for example the Church’s reaction to usury had to adopt to the new function of money when money began to fructify with the commercial revolution. We are not Anglicans who change their teachings on a regular basis – continuity is paramount in Catholicism.

.

You offer insightful comments, and I’m glad that we are developing discussions based around these teachings.

Lmaher, the article you linked to on this site is a good read, it’s credited to Seán Fagan, SM (the same author of the chapter I linked to).

The quote you posted above is a welcome addition – it further shows the reasons why we must have an informed conscience.

The ‘conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something’ is is a point that I readily agree with.

I wasn’t suggesting that simply because a person has a freedom of conscience means that they should exercise their ‘freedom’ to rally against everything. Then that conscience would simply be uninformed.

However, if a person engages with an issue, and informs their conscience, despite what others might think, they should act upon their findings.

I believe this is reflected by the former Cardinal Ratzinger at the beginning of the last quote. He says it is ‘undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience’ – he goes on to say that the judgement of the conscience may not always be right. I fully agree with this point also.

The conscience is not only a subjective idea, but I believe that it is a mutating and evolving idea. So, as we pass through life, encountering its milestones, our experiences shape us and thus help shape our conscience.

Likewise, as shown in the article you linked to Lmaher, the teachings of the Church mutate and evolve, reflecting societal, historical and theological change. The change in teachings can be observed by looking at the differences between the first and second Vatican Councils.
This should not be viewed as a criticism to Church teaching. It is a constructive and positive thing.

Cardinal Ratzinger makes the argument that ‘no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances’.

But at the same time saying that it is ‘undisputed’ that one must follow ‘a certain conscience’.

Is this to say that both Church and personal conscience are mutating ideals that don’t remain fixed, but should be informed and followed as best we can at a particular time?

Or is it subtextually saying that what I, as an individual, think of as my conscience, is not really a conscience, but merely an illusion of one which is given by the surrounding social circumstances?

Here is an interesting part of the linked article by Seán Fagan, SM:

‘Church leaders must remember that the ninety-nine per cent of Church members who are not popes, bishops or priests are equally temples of the Holy Spirit, who speaks through their faith and personal experience.’

For me, an informed conscience (which I believe to be a conscience and not just a societal illusion) on any given situation is the best thing we can have – though we realise it is not infallible and may change at some point.

As Ann said, nobody is in a position to judge whether or not somebody else has an informed conscience.

Interestingly, it also appeared in an unsigned article on Catholic Ireland here: http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=3&art=704

Perhaps something more recent from the former Cardinal Ratzinger will help this conversation:

“It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger “Conscience and Truth” Presented at the 10th Workshop for Bishops February 1991 Dallas, Texas

And yet he and I have arrived at the same truth, and my conscience tells me, just as his tells him, that abortion is wrong, very wrong, in all circumstances. It is an act that stays the hand of God, and who on earth has the right to do such a thing?

Dave, I don’t believe anyone is in a position to judge whether or not our consciences are sufficiently informed , that is between us and God, but I would say it is imperative to have an informed conscience in order to reach the truth, which need not necessarily be arrived at exclusively or entirely through book learning.

In the unlikely situation where a succession of popes were to state that abortion was no longer the great evil that it is, I would not listen to them, and Pope Benedict is the very man who would respect me for this, since he is the one who has written so well on the issue of conscience.
Thank you, Dave, for making his writing available to a wider audience through this post.