Originally posted by Nemesio
Ivanhoe,
I see you have resumed trolling me, posting things that are both off-topic and
baiting for a fight. As I understand that these things are against the posting
policy here, I advise you to stay on topic and avoid trying to start arguments.
Nemesio
Don't be ridiculous.
Originally posted by Nemesio
You don't my positions on abortion and euthanasia, Ivanhoe, so stop demonizing me.
As for the 'evils of artificial birthcontrol,' I've yet to see you (or anyone) produce a
compelling argument for this.
Nemesio
I don't know your position on abortion and euthanasia ? Of course I know ...... you don't have any fundamental objections.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "In other words, in cases such as above, one should submit one's informed conscience to the
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]One can never claim the following: "I interprete the Church's teachings in such a way that I conclude, after thinking about it, after meditating about it and after praying the Holy spirit for guidan ...[text shortened]... on the part of the person holding a different position.
Nemesio
teaching of the Church, correct?"
What is that informed conscience ? Informed by whom or what ? Suppose it is informed by the Nazi-ideology ? Then what ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs I've said, I understand the term 'informed (or well-formed)
What is that informed conscience ? Informed by whom or what ? Suppose it is informed by the Nazi-ideology ? Then what ?
conscience' to mean one which has fully considered all sides of an
issue through open thought, prayer, contemplation, and meditation.
Nazi-ideology cannot be supported by any of these things; it is a
demonstrably flawed ideology, as such, it does not pass the test for
being informed.
If the Roman Church understands 'informed' to mean 'submission to
the (infallible) teachings of Holy Mother Church,' then the use of
informed is disingenuous.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Nazi-ideology cannot be supported by any of these things; it is a
As I've said, I understand the term 'informed (or well-formed)
conscience' to mean one which has fully considered all sides of an
issue through open thought, prayer, contemplation, and meditation.
Nazi-ideology cannot be supported ...[text shortened]... r Church,' then the use of
informed is disingenuous.
Nemesio
demonstrably flawed ideology, as such, it does not pass the test for
being informed."
.... and who will decide whether a set of ideas is "informed" ? .... Right.
Nemesio: "If the Roman Church understands 'informed' to mean 'submission to
the (infallible) teachings of Holy Mother Church,' then the use of
informed is disingenuous."
if .... then .....
I think the trouble is you have certain issues in mind without making them explicit.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... and who will decide whether a set of ideas is "informed" ? .... Right.
An ideology riddled with internal contradictions is clearly uninformed.
I think the trouble is you have certain issues in mind without making them explicit.
It issue I have in mind is Infallibility. My understanding of this
Doctrine was far too charitable until recently, when Lucifershammer
pointed the error my understanding of the Church. I did not realize,
for example, that the Canons of the Council of Trent were still
considered valid, licit canons and that the notion of Infallibility still
applied to them.
As such, if Lucifershammer's understanding about this notion is
correct (and it seems that he is), then I affirm the following two
statements:
1) If the Roman Church understands 'informed' to mean 'submission to
the (infallible) teachings of Holy Mother Church,' then the use of
informed is disingenuous.
2) Since the Roman Church condemns a person when s/he acts against
conscience, and She condemns a person when s/he acts in a manner
contrary to Her Teachings, when a person has an informed conscience
which runs contrary to those teachings, the Church is explicitly stating
that the person condemn him/herself. As such, the Church's teaching
is contradictory.
If you have explicit objections to these two statements, then I would
be deeply interested in hearing them (I've been begging you to
discuss this topic for months!). If you are just going to apprise me
that I have this conspiritorial agenda, I'd just as soon see you keep
your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b].... and who will decide whether a set of ideas is "informed" ? .... Right.
An ideology riddled with internal contradictions is clearly uninformed.
I think the trouble is you have cert ...[text shortened]... ee you keep
your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself.
Nemesio
I think LH posted the correct stuff about your claims. You should read it again. Very "informative" indeed ..... know what I'm saying ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'll take your post as a concession that you can find no fault in my
I think LH posted the correct stuff about your claims. You should read it again. Very "informative" indeed ..... know what I'm saying ?
two points above, or that you are unable or unwilling to present such
findings.
I've 'informed' him as well. As such, I do not feel fully-formed in this
regard as I have lingering questions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI think the Church intends 'informed' to mean something like 'justified by reference to the demonstrably true'. Since the Church has a body of doctrine they take to be demonstrably true, it follows that they understand 'informed' to be such that an informed conscience could not, as a matter of fact, conflict with Church doctrine. Any apparent conflict would result from either an incomplete understanding of doctrine and its justification, an erroneous inference, or a extra-doctrinal supposition on the part of the conscientious.
I'll take your post as a concession that you can find no fault in my
two points above, or that you are unable or unwilling to present such
findings.
I've 'informed' him as well. As such, I do not feel fully-formed in this
regard as I have lingering questions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by bbarrI follow and have come to the same conclusion.
I think the Church intends 'informed' to mean something like 'justified by reference to the demonstrably true'. Since the Church has a body of doctrine they take to be demonstrably true, it follows that they understand 'informed' to be such that an informed conscience could not, as a matter of fact, conflict with Church doctrine. Any apparent conflict ...[text shortened]... tion, an erroneous inference, or a extra-doctrinal supposition on the part of the conscientious.
However, what follows from this is that a person, who (in the eyes of
the Church) does not have a fully informed conscience (and, as a
result, finds him/herself in disagreement with a doctrine) is compelled
to either act against his ('imperfectly informed'😉 conscience, thus
condemning him/herself or acting against doctrine, thus condemning
him/herself.
As such, what the Church demands is a submission of conscience to
Her teachings in spite of conscience. In fact, the role of conscience is
relatively insignificant, for you never need to confer with it; all one
needs is knowledge of the doctrines in order to make decisions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't think this follows, because doctrine is not maximally specific. There will be any number of occasions where either doctrine is silent on a particular issue, or doctrine gives only rough guidelines relating to a particular issue. In these circumstances, those that have integrated the doctrine in spirit will be able to use their informed consciences to determine how they ought to act. The only way that informed consciences would be insignificant is if doctrine itself was specific enough to provide an algorithm for moral deliberations, which it does not. It is not the significance of conscience, I think, that worries you, but rather the claim of the Church that their doctrine is fully comprised by the demonstrably true.
In fact, the role of conscience is relatively insignificant, for you never need to confer with it; all one needs is knowledge of the doctrines in order to make decisions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI saw you quote this document elsewhere as well, which explains the late response - which is a simple "So?"
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 be ...[text shortened]... s coined at a time when the Church was
rapidly losing power.
Is there any reason to believe that the Holy Spirit cannot act through human beings whose primary concerns lie elsewhere?
Originally posted by Nemesio
1) If the Roman Church understands 'informed' to mean 'submission to
the (infallible) teachings of Holy Mother Church,' then the use of
informed is disingenuous.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disingenuous
dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating
That's your evaluation. I do not know what the Latin word used in that para is, so I can't confirm whether the problem is one of translating an otherwise technical term from the Latin to English.
2) Since the Roman Church condemns a person when s/he acts against
conscience, and She condemns a person when s/he acts in a manner
contrary to Her Teachings, when a person has an informed conscience
which runs contrary to those teachings, the Church is explicitly stating
that the person condemn him/herself. As such, the Church's teaching
is contradictory.
As Bennett points out later, under the CC definition of "informed conscience", there can be no contradiction.
Originally posted by bbarrExactly. Gets my rec.
I don't think this follows, because doctrine is not maximally specific. There will be any number of occasions where either doctrine is silent on a particular issue, or doctrine gives only rough guidelines relating to a particular issue. In these circumstances, those that have integrated the doctrine in spirit will be able to use their informed consciences ...[text shortened]... rather the claim of the Church that their doctrine is fully comprised by the demonstrably true.
Originally posted by bbarrLet's be clear here. The cathechism reads:
I don't think this follows, because doctrine is not maximally specific. There will be any number of occasions where either doctrine is silent on a particular issue, or doctrine gives only rough guidelines relating to a particular issue. In ...[text shortened]... h that their doctrine is fully comprised by the demonstrably true.
1790 -- A human being must always obey the certain judgment of
his conscience. If he were deliberaltely to act against it, he would
condemn himself. Yet it happens that moral conscience remains in
ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be
performed or already committed.
That is: Even with an 'ill-formed' conscience (that is, one which has a
result in contradiction with Church teaching), one must act upon it or
condemn himself.
BUT...
from 2039 -- ...As far as possible conscience should take account 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.
One can take the 'should' in the emboldened sentence above to mean
a one 'should try not to be set in opposition...' but I understand it to
be less permissive and more instructive, more like that one 'shall not
be set in opposition...'
Either way, a person with an 'ill-formed' conscience on contraception
(e.g.) who is convinced that the Church is in error condemns himself
by ignoring it, but also by violating the teaching of the Church.
This seems a major problem to me.
Nemesio