Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: "Given and this is the fundamental thing that God's mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart," the pope wrote, "the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil."

Since when is what I think or what I make my mind about any topic make it right or wrong? Since when is a poorly formed conscience OK to follow?

The phrase "the pope wrote" indicate that is not a transcript, but rather a report -- one which may very well be edited or taken out of context.

LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: "Given and this is the fundamental thing that God's mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart," the pope wrote, "the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil."

Since when is what I think or what I make my mind about any topic make it right or wrong? Since when is a poorly formed conscience OK to follow?

Gabor,

I respectfully ask you to please stop attributing quotes to people without also giving a web link to the source of that quote or otherwise stating the source from which you found that quote. I am not saying that a particular quote is or is not accurate. What I am saying is that quoting (especially approximate quoting) without providing a source/s (for the quote) has the effect of the doing the same as which you accuse the Holy Father.... making contradictory statements and adding to the general confusion. If one is going to reprimand others (in this case Pope Francis) for being contradictory and confusing, then (it seems to me) that that person has an obligation to not do that same thing in their own posts.

You have done this quoting (and approximate quoting), without providing sources, several times in this thread alone. This sort of practice would not even be permitted on a high school term paper.... and the subjects here (on this site) are quite serious and should be treated as such. Quoting without providing the source material is more akin to hear-say.

Google is a very useful tool for tracking down sources of quotes.

Just my thoughts.

Ed
LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: Gabor,

I respectfully ask you to please stop attributing quotes to people without also giving a web link to the source of that quote or otherwise stating the source from which you found that quote. I am not saying that a particular quote is or is not accurate. What I am saying is that quoting (especially approximate quoting) without providing a source/s (for the quote) has the effect of the doing the same as which you accuse the Holy Father.... making contradictory statements and adding to the general confusion. If one is going to reprimand others (in this case Pope Francis) for being contradictory and confusing, then (it seems to me) that that person has an obligation to not do that same thing in their own posts.

You have done this quoting (and approximate quoting), without providing sources, several times in this thread alone. This sort of practice would not even be permitted on a high school term paper.... and the subjects here (on this site) are quite serious and should be treated as such. Quoting without providing the source material is more akin to hear-say.

Google is a very useful tool for tracking down sources of quotes.

Just my thoughts.

Ed

Ed,

There are interesting contradictions on the CM forums. Anything I have pasted is clearly from the Internet and I am in no position to verify every word quoted. However, before posting anything I usually ensure that it is consistent from multiple reputable (yes, a value judgment) sources. This is a chat forum and not a university thesis so I see no need for a poster to provide detailed footnotes for anything they post. I also noticed another poster quite recently posted a web link and his/her post was immediately deleted. I read the link before deletion and did not feel that there was anything that warranted the removal of the post.

Rather than attacking the messenger of something purportedly said by the Holy Father (supported by multiple sources- Google "Pope Francis conscience" should work), I have noticed no comments about the appropriateness of the comments (i.e. is following a poorly formed conscience and sinning consistent with Catholic teaching?).

I am only posting on the CM forums because I have too much time on my hands currently and I pray through the Grace of God that this free time will no longer be available in the near future. I do not get out of bed hoping that the Holy Father will have said something that violates Catholic teaching so that I can quickly jump on a CM Forum to attack the Pope and gain some one-upmanship. In fact I am seriously considering not following what the Pope is saying at all and focusing on following the Catholic teaching and discipline of all time. I am not a theologian, an expert on anything and I cant even say that I am a particularly good person. However, I believe Catholics have always benefited from clarity and direction rather than ambiguity and confusion. Since this thread started the Holy Father has been misquoted quite a lot. In my opinion more so than during the past 2 pontificates. Whatever the reasons for that I know not.

Sursum Corda.

LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
Clarity in times of murkiness.Is that asking too much?I have The Cathicism of the Council of Trent.I have Denzingers Sourse of Catholic Dogma,and understand clearly when I read those what the Church teaches.
LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said:

Ed,

There are interesting contradictions on the CM forums. Anything I have pasted is clearly from the Internet and I am in no position to verify every word quoted. However, before posting anything I usually ensure that it is consistent from multiple reputable (yes, a value judgment) sources. This is a chat forum and not a university thesis so I see no need for a poster to provide detailed footnotes for anything they post. I also noticed another poster quite recently posted a web link and his/her post was immediately deleted. I read the link before deletion and did not feel that there was anything that warranted the removal of the post.

Rather than attacking the messenger of something purportedly said by the Holy Father (supported by multiple sources- Google "Pope Francis conscience" should work), I have noticed no comments about the appropriateness of the comments (i.e. is following a poorly formed conscience and sinning consistent with Catholic teaching?).

I am only posting on the CM forums because I have too much time on my hands currently and I pray through the Grace of God that this free time will no longer be available in the near future. I do not get out of bed hoping that the Holy Father will have said something that violates Catholic teaching so that I can quickly jump on a CM Forum to attack the Pope and gain some one-upmanship. In fact I am seriously considering not following what the Pope is saying at all and focusing on following the Catholic teaching and discipline of all time. I am not a theologian, an expert on anything and I cant even say that I am a particularly good person. However, I believe Catholics have always benefited from clarity and direction rather than ambiguity and confusion. Since this thread started the Holy Father has been misquoted quite a lot. In my opinion more so than during the past 2 pontificates. Whatever the reasons for that I know not.

Sursum Corda.

Gabor,

If you are going to quote someone, then you need to be accurate in your quote and note the source so that others may follow up on it. To not do so is to do the same thing that you accuse Pope Francis of doing.... being contradictory and adding to confusion.

You ARE in a position to show a source for attributed quotes. You have the internet and Google. It is not hard at all to discover the source of such quotes. To not do so (when it is simple to do and can lead to confusion) is simply laziness. It is your responsibility.

You wrote .... "Rather than attacking the messenger of something..." You are not a messenger if you are not quoting accurately, providing approximate quotes and not giving a source for you quotes. Until you do so, it is not appropriate to comment on the content of approximate quotes. It just leads to more confusion.... precisely what you have been complaining about in regards to the Holy Father.

I had already pointed out in a prior post where your comments, quotes and interpretations of Pope Francis (concerning memorized prayer) were not accurate and not in full context. At the very least, it was sloppy writing on your part, and it could mislead others. As you noted this is not a university thesis, but you cannot continue (in good faith) to make such quotes and "approximate quotes" by simply pulling them from memory without showing where they are coming from. That is sloppy, lazy, improper, confusing and a dis-service to all members reading it. What would be your reaction if I were to write up some "approximate quote" that you apparently said or wrote, and then posted it here, out of context and without providing a source? I suspect you would not be happy.... and you shouldn't be. If you can't give a source (for your quotes) so that others can check into it, then please don't make the post at all.

Ed


LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: Clarity in times of murkiness.Is that asking too much?I have The Cathicism of the Council of Trent.I have Denzingers Sourse of Catholic Dogma,and understand clearly when I read those what the Church teaches.
I agree to more clarity... And I hope that Gabor will hold himself to the same level of clarity to which he expects of the pope. Is that too much to ask of Gabor?

Ed
LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
Dear Ed,

I suggested that you google "Pope Francis conscience." I have done so and this is a few items found:

www.theguardian.com

www.patheos.com.

articles.washingtonpost.com.

There are numerous other publications which have stated the Holy Father's views on the primacy of conscience in addition to the above publications and they may very well be "misquotes". My humble belief is that based on my understanding of Catholic teaching (pre Pope Francis I) that the Bishop of Rome is wrong in respect of this matter. I have implicitly assumed that you believe that abiding by your personal conscience despite it potentially being in conflict with Church teaching is OK? I consider that to be what Pope Benedict XVI called "moral relativism."

I personally am not going to be seeking out the next big statement by the Pope and will instead pray for him, his priests and his flock.

Pax

LOCKED
Oct 21st 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: Dear Ed,

I suggested that you google "Pope Francis conscience." I have done so and this is a few items found:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/pope-francis-atheists-abide-consciences

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/11/pope-francis-atheists-can-be-saved-if-they-o...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-11/national/41965591_1_pope-francis-catholic-church-pope-...

There are numerous other publications which have stated the Holy Father's views on the primacy of conscience in addition to the above publications and they may very well be "misquotes". My humble belief is that based on my understanding of Catholic teaching (pre Pope Francis I) that the Bishop of Rome is wrong in respect of this matter. I have implicitly assumed that you believe that abiding by your personal conscience despite it potentially being in conflict with Church teaching is OK? I consider that to be what Pope Benedict XVI called "moral relativism."

I personally am not going to be seeking out the next big statement by the Pope and will instead pray for him, his priests and his flock.

Pax

Of course, there is the matter of Pope Francis' homily on October 17th. Now, as the dialogue goes, if all he is saying is that saying prayers in a "machine gun fashion" that isn't prayer. However, does the Pope set up a false dichotomy between "prayer" and verbal prayer which is the foundation of prayer?

youtu.be


LOCKED
Oct 22nd 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: "Given and this is the fundamental thing that God's mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart," the pope wrote, "the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil."

Since when is what I think or what I make my mind about any topic make it right or wrong? Since when is a poorly formed conscience OK to follow?

Just concerning conscience...

As copied from the Catechism www.vatican.va

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

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.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

---------------------------

My Comments:

My understanding of this is that the Church teaches that each person must, in the end, follow his/her conscience. As written in #1790 (above) ..... If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. As I understand, this applies to Catholics, non-Catholics... even Atheists.

The Catechism also teaches that every person has the personal responsibility to have a well-informed conscience. As written in #1791 (above).... This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good,....

As written in #1793 (above).... 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,....

As I try to put all of this together, my understanding is that (the Church teaches) even the Atheist or Agnostic has a responsibility to properly inform his conscience to the best of his ability. But after doing his best to be informed, he is obligated to follow the Good, as informed by his personal conscience (though perhaps flawed), even though the formation of his conscience may be somewhat compromised (for one reason or another).... for if were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. >>> For as written in #1782... He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience,...

Just my best interpretation (but I'm no professional theologian).... and I believe that this is what the Holy Father is saying.

Ed


LOCKED
Oct 22nd 2013 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: Just concerning conscience...

As copied from the Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

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.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

---------------------------

My Comments:

My understanding of this is that the Church teaches that each person must, in the end, follow his/her conscience. As written in #1790 (above) ..... If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. As I understand, this applies to Catholics, non-Catholics... even Atheists.

The Catechism also teaches that every person has the personal responsibility to have a well-informed conscience. As written in #1791 (above).... This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good,....

As written in #1793 (above).... 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,....

As I try to put all of this together, my understanding is that (the Church teaches) even the Atheist or Agnostic has a responsibility to properly inform his conscience to the best of his ability. But after doing his best to be informed, he is obligated to follow the Good, as informed by his personal conscience (though perhaps flawed), even though the formation of his conscience may be somewhat compromised (for one reason or another).... for if were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. >>> For as written in #1782... He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience,...

Just my best interpretation (but I'm no professional theologian).... and I believe that this is what the Holy Father is saying.

Ed


Somewhere in this thread (I believe) I read that this sort of analysis (as presented in the prior post) is moral relativism. I would certainly disagree that this is moral relativism, and I would venture that our present and past popes would not call this moral relativism either. There is nothing in that presentation that changes what is objectively Good or objectively Evil at all.

As an example, a woman may have an abortion (and a man may participate in the action in some way). The action is objectively a grave sin (evil), but subjectively it depends on the true conscience of the woman (and the man) whether one or both of them have actually committed a sin. If they were truly (and completely) ignorant, through no fault of their own, that what they did was morally wrong, then they have committed an act that is objectively sinful, but subjectively they have not committed a sin. I suspect though, that this is a rather extreme case, as I think that except for the most sincere Atheist, there is very likely something within their personal conscience (though flawed) that makes them at least feel that the action is wrong on some level.

Just my 2 cents.

Ed
LOCKED
Posts 131 - 140 of 200