Opinions concerning conscience and Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[Aragon]

In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor John Paul II speaks about the role of conscience in responding to moral dilemmas as well as the inviolability of man's conscience. According to the late Holy Father there exists an absolute good which man must strive to attain and freedom, rather than being left to do whatever one wants, is the ability to pursue this absolute good of our own volition. The role of man's conscience is not to be the final arbiter on what is good and what is wrong but rather to discern these universal realities and then, through an act of the intellect and the will, act accordingly. Man exercises his freedom correctly when he chooses to do what is right.

Of course, in our fallen state, the situation often arises where an individual's conscience is not properly formed or makes an erroneous judgement concerning what is moral and what is not. According to John Paul II man is still bound to follow his conscience, even if it is incorrect. There's a distinction here between two opinions concerning the primacy of conscience. The first ascribes to conscience not just the task of discerning right from wrong but actually creating right and wrong. Concerning this theory JP2 wrote:

The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

The second, that advocated in the encyclical, is that  these moral decisions are incorrect however the man is still obliged to follow his conscience, even if it leads him to acts that are objectively immoral. At his particular judgement man will be judged according to whether he acted in accordance with his conscience.

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.

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."

My questions for fellow fisheaters:

1. Suppose Martin Luther honestly believed in his novel doctrines. If Luther's conscience told him that the Church of Rome was the whore of Babylon yet, for various reasons, he had decided to end his rebellion would Luther have been committing a grave sin by disobeying the judgement of his conscience (albeit erroneous)?

2. I think we can agree that most non-Catholics do not discern any obligation to enter the Catholic Church. In fact to do so may mean affirming doctrines that they consider incorrect which would be acting contrary to their conscience. If this is the case, and the individual has not had the opportunity to properly form his conscience, how does this affect the dogma "Outside of the Church there is no salvation", a question especially pertinent to those Catholics who hold to the more rigorous interpretation of EENS (that baptism of desire is only applicable to catechumens, or doesn't exist at all)?

3. Do you have a problem with the post-conciliar teaching on conscience? If so then please explain.

[James02]

For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, [4] Because they did works hateful to thee by their sorceries, and wicked sacrifices, [5] And those merciless murderers of their own children, and eaters of men's bowels, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy consecration, [6] And those parents sacrificing with their own hands helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents, [7] That the land which of all is most dear to thee might receive a worthy colony of the children of God.

You know, you don't go throwing your baby into a furnace unless you have strong faith that it is the right thing to do.  And yet, God ABHORRED these pagans following their conscience.  I don't want to be a person following my conscience whom God ABHORS come judgement day.

Acutally, God abhors everyone because of Original Sin, so all we have is Jesus Christ.  And that is the only way to propitiate the wrath of God.

[Aragon]

For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, [4] Because they did works hateful to thee by their sorceries, and wicked sacrifices, [5] And those merciless murderers of their own children, and eaters of men's bowels, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy consecration, [6] And those parents sacrificing with their own hands helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents, [7] That the land which of all is most dear to thee might receive a worthy colony of the children of God.

You know, you don't go throwing your baby into a furnace unless you have strong faith that it is the right thing to do.  And yet, God ABHORRED these pagans following their conscience.  I don't want to be a person following my conscience whom God ABHORS come judgement day.

Acutally, God abhors everyone because of Original Sin, so all we have is Jesus Christ.  And that is the only way to propitiate the wrath of God.

But how do you think this opinion fits in with the teaching of the Church on the obligation to follow the judgements of our conscience, even erroneous ones?

ETA: If I recall correctly you hold to a strict interpretation of EENS, so I'd be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

[James02]

For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.
[16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

DrBo commentary:  "Not yet born"... By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined; nor to any prerogative of birth, or any forgoing merits. For as, antecedently to his grace, he sees no merits in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath: there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other.

Of course a personalist would have a hard time with this teaching.

[James02]

But how do you think this opinion fits in with the teaching of the Church on the obligation to follow the judgements of our conscience, even erroneous ones?

While you should follow your conscience, you are also obliged to find the Truth.

And if you conscience isn't the Truth, then you will perish.  There is only salvation by one name, Jesus.  That is the only way to find mercy.

Now if in the relationship of grace and mercy, you do wrong, but don't believe it is wrong, then you will be ok.  Because you will have the Passion to propitiate the Lord's Just wrath. 

[James02]

ETA: If I recall correctly you hold to a strict interpretation of EENS, so I'd be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Well, I part company with the Feeneyites over an actual desire for baptism by someone who has Faith in Jesus and desires to be baptized and join the Catholic Faith.  Even there, I only  lean in this belief. 

[James02]

2. I think we can agree that most non-Catholics do not discern any obligation to enter the Catholic Church. In fact to do so may mean affirming doctrines that they consider incorrect which would be acting contrary to their conscience. If this is the case, and the individual has not had the opportunity to properly form his conscience, how does this affect the dogma "Outside of the Church there is no salvation", a question especially pertinent to those Catholics who hold to the more rigorous interpretation of EENS (that baptism of desire is only applicable to catechumens, or doesn't exist at all)?

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

It does not affect the dogmatic teaching EENS.  Such a person is not of the elect.  He is not saved.

[Someone1776]

I think something to keep in mind is that the church has always viewed conscience very differently that modern society does.  Today we think of conscience as a completely subjective thing.  But, the church has never held this view nor did John Paul II.  In the same encyclical John Paul lambastes moral relativism, which modern notions of conscience are based on.  

Rather, the Catholic Church's view, to use an analogy, is that everyone has a compass built into them by God that alerts them if something is moral or not.  Now this compass doesn't always work perfectly because its been tainted by original sin; but, overall people KNOW what is right or wrong without being instructed about morality.  Thus, a Native American living in America in 1300 would know that murder is wrong even though he had never been exposed to the faith.  

However, our conscience doesn't operate alone.  It operates with the knowledge of the Catholic Church and Natural Law.  The Church has long taught that we are obligated to follow conscience, but as John Paul II stated in his encyclical questions of conscience involve a dialog between man and God, not just man alone.  Thus when a person claims their conscience made them do something sinful they're not really talking about conscience but a perverted view of conscience that removes God from the discussion.  

[James02]

1. Suppose Martin Luther honestly believed in his novel doctrines. If Luther's conscience told him that the Church of Rome was the whore of Babylon yet, for various reasons, he had decided to end his rebellion would Luther have been committing a grave sin by disobeying the judgement of his conscience (albeit erroneous)?

You are asking a question of little importance.  What you are describing is a man without Faith.  An heretic.  Since he would not have the Faith, he would perish.  You can not be saved without Faith.  The culpability of this heresy of his will be factored in on judgment day, and determine his level of punishment.  But he has not the Faith, and therefore can not be saved.

[GottmitunsAlex]

Here is the link to the ongoing thread about  Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3439099.msg33468459.html#msg33468459