Catholic 'Informed Conscience'

1. Is the teaching "if you have contemplated, prayed, meditated and thought about a topic and simply cannot rationally or spiritually be compelled by the position of the Church, one is morally obligiated to 'always obey the certain judgment' of one's conscience," your own (or a non-Catholic source) or from a Church document (such as the CCC)? (Specifically, the italicised portion.) If the latter, please provide a reference.

Now, to your post:

Originally posted by Nemesio
1790 answers your question. Ignorance is not excuse for conscience.
However, it is 100% that if you have contemplated, prayed, meditated
and thought about a topic and simply cannot rationally or spiritually
be compelled by the position of the Church, one is morally
obligiated to 'always obey the certain judgment' of one's
conscience, with emphasis on 'certainty.'

This is why the term '[b]informed conscience' is used. One is
expected to strive to understand the position of the Church by
studying the documents and the Bible, but one absolutely cannot go
against one's (informed) conscience just because the Church teaches
differently.[/b]

To answer this, I will backtrack a little in the CCC:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

2. The terms "[informed] conscience" and "well-formed conscience" appear to be synonymous.
3. Human beings who are "tempted by sin to prefer their own judgement and to reject [the Church's] authoritative teachings" require the education of the conscience.
4. It follows, therefore, that the consciences of those that reject the Church's authoritative teachings are not well-formed.
5. "Informed" in this context means more than "aware" [of Church teachings]. Rather, it one that is educated and formed in the light of Church teachings.

The cross-reference to this para reads:

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person's own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

6. This makes it clear - the personal conscience is not to be followed if it opposes the Magisterium (teachings) of the Church.

Again from the CCC:

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

7. The well-formed conscience is guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
8. A conscience that rejects the teachings of the Church is not guided by it.
9. Hence, such a conscience is not well-formed / informed.
10. Note again the word "authoritative" with respect to Church teachings.

Reference 55 is from Dignitatis Humanae:

However, in forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself. (DH 14)

11. Here we encounter the word "certain", which does not just mean "sure", but also "authoritative" and "correct".
12. The Catholic Church "teaches with authority the truth".
13. "Truth can [never] be in opposition to truth ... every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false" (Dei Verbum, Ch. 4. nn.17,18)
14. A conscience that sets itself in opposition to the truth that is authoritatively taught by the Church asserts a falsehood and, again, is not well-formed/informed.

Now, returning to CCC 1790:

15. The term "certain judgement of conscience" does not simply mean "100% sure". As seen in (11), it must be authoritative and correct.
16. Even if I were to assume your idea of "informed conscience" being a conscience aware of the teachings of the Church, how can such a conscience be 100% sure it's correct when it knows that Church teachings are authoritative and true, and to set itself in opposition to Church teachings would be to assert a false position?
17. Even if I were to assume your idea of "certain [conscience]" being a 100% sure conscience, the latter part of 1790 shows that such a conscience "[can remain] in ignorance and [make] erroneous judgments". It further corroborates the idea that an "informed conscience" is not just one that is merely "aware", but also guided by Church teaching.
18. Further, 1792 reiterates the erroneous nature of such judgments when they "[reject] the Church's authority and her teaching".

Later, the CCC says:

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

19. Erroneous judgements are guilty except under certain conditions.

What are those conditions?

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

20. Ignorance is "invincible" when it is beyond the control of the person concerned.
21. Erroneous judgement is not culpable if the person is not responsible for it.
22. A person who has studied the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, prayed and meditated over it is certainly responsible for his judgement when he uses it to violate the teachings of the Scriptures/Church.

I'm sorry Nemesio - but your narrow reading of [the first part of] 1790 simply does not mean what you say when taken in the context of the section in the CCC and the larger body of Church teachings.

To make the argument that disagreement with the Church
necessitates ignorance is to fall into the Darfius-Trap, wherein a
person claims 'Well, if you disagree, you don't have the Holy Spirit and
can't understand and are ignorant.' I reject such non-reasoning.

The term "ignorant" in the context of the CCC section on Conscience does not merely mean "unaware", rather it also means "unenlightened" and "ill-formed".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Is the teaching "if you have contemplated, prayed, meditated
and thought about a topic and simply cannot rationally or spiritually
be compelled by the position of the Church, one is morally
obligiated to 'always obey the certain judgment' of one's
conscience," your own (or a non-Catholic source) or from a Church document (such a ...[text shortened]... nce does not merely mean "unaware", rather it also means "unenlightened" and "ill-formed".

To summarise the previous post:

1. The Church neither teaches nor implies that a person can (much less be obliged to) reject Church teachings.
2. CCC 2037 teaches exactly the opposite.
3. An informed conscience is not one that merely knows what the Church teaches, but one that accepts and is guided by it.

It appears that the logical infelicity is in the Catechism, then.

Consider:
1778 ...In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

and

2039 ...As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Clearly:
One should educate oneself about the teachings of the Church,
pray about them, contemplate them, ask for the intercession of the
Holy Spirit for guidance and so forth and, coming to a decision
dictated by conscience which is contrary to Church teaching, one has
two choices:

1) Obey the Church, thus acting in a fashion which your informed
heart of hearts tells you is a sinful way; or
2) Obey your conscience, thus acting in a way with which the Church
has objection.

As I reject the notion that only a truly informed conscience will agree
with the Church, these are the only two options for a person. As such,
the person at #2 is condemning himself as per CCC1790 and the
person at #1 is condemning himself as per CCC2039.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
As I reject the notion that only a truly informed conscience will agree
with the Church, these are the only two options for a person. As such,
the person at #2 is condemning himself as per CCC1790 and the
person at #1 is condemning himself as per CCC2039.

Nemesio

As I wrote above, when the CCC speaks of "informed conscience" it is not talking about one that is merely aware/educated of Church teaching, but also well-formed and guided by it. This is corroborated by CCC 1783 (where the term is used) and consistent with the rest of Church teaching on the matter. While your interpretation of the word "informed" is admittedly the most direct and obvious one, it simply does not fit into the context. Granted, I am no theologian and I do not have access to the less ambiguous Latin version of the CCC (and, even if I did, I wouldn't understand much because I do not know Latin); nevertheless, my interpretation of the word fits both the lesser context of the CCC section and the larger context of Church teaching as a whole on the matter better. From experience, we know that the Church can and does use common words in slightly unusual senses in theological documents (think theotokos or "Mother of God", catholic or "Universal" etc.)

You may reject the notion that a truly informed conscience will always agree with the Church (at least, that is what I think you're rejecting) - but that is not what the Church teaches. Since we're discussing the factual matter of whether the Church permits people to follow their conscience when it rejects Church teaching, your personal acceptance/rejection of the notion is irrelevant.

EDIT: Besides, if the Church intended to teach in CCC 1790 what you've interpreted of it, doesn't it seem strange that it would've then explicitly rejected the notion in CCC 2039 - in the same document? Remember your original assertion (both in the "Salvation" and the "Pope John Paul the Great" threads) was that the Church [explicitly and voluntarily] taught a notion of "informed conscience" that corresponds to yours.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
To summarise the previous post:

1. The Church neither teaches nor implies that a person can (much less be obliged to) reject Church teachings.
2. CCC 2037 teaches [b]exactly the opposite.
3. An informed conscience is not one that merely knows what the Church teaches, but one that accepts and is guided by it.[/b]

Errata:

(2) should read CCC 2039 ...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You may reject the notion that a truly informed conscience will always agree with the Church (at least, that is what I think you're rejecting) - but that is not what the Church teaches. Since we're discussing a factual matter ofwhether the Church permits people to follow their conscience when it rejects Church teaching, your personal acceptance/rejection of the notion is irrelevant.

What I reject is that a fully formed conscience necessarily means it
will agree with the Church on all matters of Doctrinal signficance. If
this were so, then all people who had contemplated the nature of God
would be coming to the same conclusions and agree with the Church.

Such is obviously and demonstrably not true. Even within the Church,
very holy people have been at odds about all manner of Doctrinal
teaching. The idea that the Holy Spirit is only present in some of
them is rather monopolistic. Outside of the Church, even wider debate
is present. Is the Church also maintaining that the Holy Spirit isn't
speaking to them either?

If so, then the argument reverts to the Darfius-Trap: if you disagree,
you ought to submit your will to interpretation X, otherwise, you
condemn yourself. This flies in the face of 'informed' or 'well-formed'
anything; it explicitly demands an automatonic subservience to the
teaching of the Church. Did Jesus want the blind and hollow adherence
to the writings of the modern church? No. Sincerity was paramount:
doing something in love and honesty was a necessary part of acting in
faith. As such, I reject the notion that one must submit to the will of
the Church in contradiction to the well-formed/informed conscience as
unBiblical.

Indeed, all of this stems from the notion of infallibility (which I have
been reading up on, given my earlier misunderstanding). The idea
that the Church is always right to the degree to which She knows about
God is part of the problem. The infallibility doctrine, proclaimed in the
19th century, is going to be the millstone which will, sadly, drag an
otherwise well-meaning Church down.

For example, before JPII was Pope, he co-authored the following
document regarding contraception:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then
we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in the 1930s [when the encyclical
Casti Connubii was promulgated], in 1951 [Pius XII's address to the
midwives], and in 1958 [the address delivered before the Society of
Hematologists in the year the Pope died]. It should likewise have to
be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI,
Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very
serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts,
forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would
now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that
these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of
principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have
either condemned or at least not approved.

This writing very clearly indicates that, at the very least, a primary
concern of the Church was politics, not the Holy Spirit. The
Church was trying to save face, and save a very powerful doctrine
(i.e., infallibility) which was coined at a time when the Church was
rapidly losing power.

As such, the Church's adherence to this Doctrine (of Infallibility) will
be its indubitable downfall. The Church's inability to recognize that it
authoritatively denounced practices which, upon prayerful reflection
are licit is a macroscopic version of the relationship between informed
conscience and automatonical adherence.

Jesus was always questioning and reflecting on that which was said in
the Bible and by His spiritual community. Where He saw error, He
corrected it. The Church, and the person, has an obligation to himself
and Himself to do the same, by reflecting actively on actions, praying
for guidance, and continuing to inform one's conscience.

To do otherwise is to behave no differently than the Pharisees who
automatonically followed the teachings of their church, all the while
ignorant of what they signified.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Nope, I'm a bottom feeder. Just ask him.

You see, it is permissible for him to blatantly insult me (despite his
Christian charge to turn the other cheek), but I have no doubt that
he has alerted a few of my posts (like the one above) in an effort to
silence my opinion.

It is his right, I just hope that the moderators will respond to any
unwarranted alerting with a warning to him.

Nemesio

Like I said elsewhere, if your posts are being alerted then the rest of us had better watch out.

I'm no where near as polite or patient.

Originally posted by Darfius
When have I ever said such a thing? That was a despicable thing to say, Nemesio, and frankly below even your standards.

I suspect that you won't deny it, then, Darfius, because if you did, you'd be a
liar. You have claimed many times that a believer (who is necessarily imbued
with the Holy Spirit) has a special, magical insight in to Scripture that a non-
believe necessarily does not have. That is, contradictions magically disappear,
one gets magic discernment between those passages which ought to be literally
and figuratively, reason and history have no bearing, &c. You also become
selectively deaf and forgetful for those things which might cause your faith to
stumble.

Thus: the Darfius-Trap.

You should be honored! Not everyone gets something coined after themselves.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Nope, I'm a bottom feeder. Just ask him.

You see, it is permissible for him to blatantly insult me (despite his
Christian charge to turn the other cheek), but I have no doubt that
he has alerted a few of my posts (like the one above) in an effort to
silence my opinion.

It is his right, I just hope that the moderators will respond to any
unwarranted alerting with a warning to him.

Nemesio

I've yet to Alert one of your posts.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I suspect that you won't deny it, then, Darfius, because if you did, you'd be a
liar. You have claimed many times that a believer (who is necessarily imbued
with the Holy Spirit) has a special, magical insight in to Scripture that a non-
believe necessarily does not have. That is, contradictions magically disappear,
one gets magic discernment between ...[text shortened]... Trap.

You should be honored! Not everyone gets something coined after themselves.

Nemesio

I've said the Holy Spirit makes the Bible clear to those who seek the Truth. I've never made claims about people's salvation as you say I have.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I suspect that you won't deny it, then, Darfius, because if you did, you'd be a
liar. Not everyone gets something coined after themselves.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "You should be honored! Not everyone gets something coined after themselves."

I wonder if your sharp sarcasm, that angry venom you so often spout on the forums, is inspired by the Word of God or the Holy Spirit in any way ?

Originally posted by telerion
Like I said elsewhere, if your posts are being alerted then the rest of us had better watch out.

I'm no where near as polite or patient.

Nemesio, polite and patient ? ...... what is it you've got in your eyes ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
What I reject is that a fully formed conscience necessarily means it
will agree with the Church on all matters of Doctrinal signficance. ignorant of what they signified.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "As such, the Church's adherence to this Doctrine (of Infallibility) will
be its indubitable downfall. "

..... false prophets and enemies of the Church have been claiming the Church's downfall for two-thousand years now. I see you have joined their ranks.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What I reject is that a fully formed conscience necessarily means it
will agree with the Church on all matters of Doctrinal signficance. If
this were so, then all people who had contemplated the nature of God
would be coming to the same conclusions and agree with the Church.

Such is obviously and demonstrably not true. Even within the Church,
very h ...[text shortened]... lowed the teachings of their church, all the while
ignorant of what they signified.

Nemesio

Can we agree, then, that the views on "informed conscience" you presented in the "Salvation" and "John Paul the Great" threads do not accurately reflect Church teachings on the matter?

I'll return to the rest of your post later today.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I cited this very material before (I just gave the reference numbers,
I believe). It is somewhere in this forum, though it might have been
moderated by the anti-Catholic folk around here.

1790 answers your question. Ignorance is not ...[text shortened]... stand and are ignorant.' I reject such non-reasoning.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "However, it is 100% that if you have contemplated, prayed, meditated
and thought about a topic and simply cannot rationally or spiritually
be compelled by the position of the Church, one is morally
obligiated to 'always obey the certain judgment' of one's
conscience, with emphasis on 'certainty.' "

Do you honestly think that if you think about, meditate and pray enough "for guidance" you can change evil to good ? Is that the way you fooled yourself into your positions on artificial birthcontrol, abortion and euthanasia ?