Opinions concerning conscience and Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[Aragon]

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. 

I'm not sure how true this is. For example the sociopathic lack this interior moral compass.

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.  

Right, I completely agree with the first part of this. The Church does seem to teach however that man is bound to follow the dictates of his conscience even when it fails to discern what is really good and what is really wrong. I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim that it's "not really conscience" if it diverges from the Church's moral teachings and, to my understanding, the Church doesn't claim that either.

[Aragon]

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 question isn't specifically about Martin Luther. Rather I was trying to think of a real life example where acting according to one's conscience necessitated their separation from the Catholic Church. According to you he would be damned for not having the Faith but according to John Paul II, if he had remained in the Church despite disagreeing with it, he would have been damned for failing to follow his conscience. This is the tension between the doctrine of conscience put forward in the Holy Father's encyclical and the dogma EENS that I wanted to explore.

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.

Could you elaborate on this a little more, please? My understanding was that a lack of culpability also affected whether one was admitted to the beatific vision or not, not just what degree of punishment they receive in Hell.

[James02]

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."

I am assuming this is from the Schoenborn authored CCC.  Anyhow, the gist seems to be that we are forbidden to coerce people into the Faith.  That is the perennial teaching of the Church.  The part about not preventing someone from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters, has the sloppiness and lack of precision you come to expect from the Conciliar Church, because if you follow it, it means you would be sinning if you prevented Satanists from slowly carving up little puppies.  I think NeoCatholics are cracked, but I can't bring myself into believing Schoenborn would believe this.

[Someone1776]

I'm not sure how true this is. For example the sociopathic lack this interior moral compass.

Someone who is lacks their moral compass is insane and also most likely lacks free will.  For something to be a sin you must have will and understanding that it is a sin.

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.   Right, I completely agree with the first part of this. The Church does seem to teach however that man is bound to follow the dictates of his conscience even when it fails to discern what is really good and what is really wrong. I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim that it's "not really conscience" if it diverges from the Church's moral teachings and, to my understanding, the Church doesn't claim that either.

That's not quite what I am getting at.  For example in the same encyclical John Paul II used the example of birth control as an evil.  Someone who really thinks about the morality of this in a discussion with God will realize its evil.  Someone who decides to just focus on man will accept it.  Once you cut God out of the picture your conscience will justify anything.  But, people's consciences should alert them that they are doing something very grave when they reject God.  

[James02]

According to you he would be damned for not having the Faith but according to John Paul II, if he had remained in the Church despite disagreeing with it, he would have been damned for failing to follow his conscience.

If he is a formal heretic, he is damned.  That's the bottom line.  His conscience is rather meaningless.  Now if he was a material heretic only (and conscience comes to bear here), then he would probably be saved since he would not have mortal sin.  It is hard to come up with hypotheticals.  We would need to talk about an actual example.

Could you elaborate on this a little more, please? My understanding was that a lack of culpability also affected whether one was admitted to the beatific vision or not, not just what degree of punishment they receive in Hell.

  All are lost.  Some, out of grace and mercy are given the grace to be reborn and saved.  AFTER you enter into a gracious relationship with God, then your actions and merits come into play.  Rejecting the Catholic Church means you don't have the Faith, or have lost it.  That is by definition formal heresy, and means you are damned, at that point.  How you got there will probably be factored in to your judgement.

Now we can also consider those who are only material heretics.  For example, probably 90% of Catholics (including a good chunk of Trads) believe the bread species is the Body of Christ only, and the wine species is the Blood of Christ only.  That is an heresy.  But those who believe it probably have zero culpability, and are still Catholic.

[Someone1776]

For example, probably 90% of Catholics (including a good chunk of Trads) believe the bread species is the Body of Christ only, and the wine species is the Blood of Christ only.  That is an heresy.  But those who believe it probably have zero culpability, and are still Catholic.

This is another good reason why the wine should not be given to the laity...

[James02]

This was the reason why it was withheld from them in the first place.

[Someone1776]

This was the reason why it was withheld from them in the first place.

Thank you! I had a long argument with someone on this point the other day...

[James02]

Every drop of the wine species, and every crumb of the bread species IS the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, undivided.

[Someone1776]

Every drop of the wine species, and every crumb of the bread species IS the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, undivided.

I KNOW!

Sadly, most Catholics don't even believe in transubstantiation...