In the combox for part 2, a reader writes:
But where might the concept of natural law come in — that is, the idea that certain moral laws are written on all people’s hearts, such that they cannot authentically claim that they didn’t recognize the wrongness of a certain action?
It would seem to me that such persons would have to actively “bury” the natural law in order to not recognize the wrongness of such actions — and it is that choice to “bury” the law that is sinful and extends sin to the actions that follow.
Natural law is assumed throughout my comments on conscience and authority. If there were no natural law, we would have no basis for arriving at judgments of right and wrong — we could only have blind intuitions, authoritative declarations or some combination of the two. Morality would seem totally random to us; we could have no insight into why something was right or wrong.
The possibility of “burying” or suppressing innate knowledge of right and wrong is of course always an ever-present factor to be contended with. To the extent that one is culpable for the false conclusions one arrives at, one has deliberately avoided reaching, or has at least sabotaged, one’s “last best” judgment about the right thing to do.
To that extent, one is culpable for misforming one’s conscience and therefore to that extent for the false judgments one arrives at — what is called “vincible” ignorance — and the sinful acts one commits in that state.
However, the disfiguring effects of original sin upon the faculties — what Catholic theology calls concupiscence — are also an important factor impeding us from coming to a knowledge of the truth, even the truth written on our hearts. Because of this, it can be difficult or even impossible for us to ascertain the extent to which our own acts of suppression, as opposed to the innate brokenness of our fallen condition, are responsible for our flawed knowledge of moral truth.
So, while it’s true that the moral law is written on our hearts so that we have knowledge of the truth, it’s also true that our intellects have been darkened by original sin, and this darkened condition is part of the concupiscent weakness that, even after original sin is washed away by baptism and we are reborn in Christ, makes it hard for us to attain, understand and retain spiritual truth in the fulness of its beauty and integrity.
This is why we need proper formation, as well as the illumination of regeneration, to help compensate for, correct and transcend the limitations of our broken ability to interpret correctly the truths written on our hearts. Ignorance of this sort, for which one is not culpable, is called “invicible” ignorance.
Thus, for example, we can’t necessarily say with confidence that a Protestant raised in a culture where acceptance of contraception is unanimous, or a Muslim raised with acceptance of polygamy, etc., is personally culpable for suppressing his conscience on these points — i.e., that his ignorance is vincible rather than invincible. Unanimous cultural consensus carries significant moral authority, and in the absence of adequate formation the truths written on our hearts may not come across with sufficient clarity to the darkened intellect to empower the individual to challenge his culture.
Or again they may, by God’s grace, for a particular person. But it’s for God alone to judge that in a particular case a person is necessarily culpable for burying the witness of his conscience. Even when it comes to more disturbing practices or institutions (female genital mutilation or male castration, for instance, or even human sacrifice), ascertaining the moral culpability of individuals is not for use to judge.
I’m not denying that individuals in such cultures, or some individuals, may know somewhere deep down that these things are wrong, and may be culpable for suppressing such knowledge of the truth as they may find written on their hearts. I’m saying that concupiscence complicates things, and only God can can ascertain the vincibility or invicibility of particular errors, the culpability or inculpability of a particular person’s failure to discern truths written on our hearts.
I’m not denying that individuals in such cultures, or some individuals, may know somewhere deep down that these things are wrong, and may be culpable for suppressing such knowledge of the truth as they may find written on their hearts. I’m saying that concupiscence complicates things
For completeness, you also mentioned “unanimous cultural consensus” as complicating things by carrying significant moral authority. But I’ll also add that each person is unique in many different ways, and what may look (to an outsider) like small differences in culture (like your father’s education, or a “chance” onetime private meeting with someone, or living at 1233 Elm Street rather than 1211 Elm Street) — and not just “unanimous cultural consensus” — or small differences in DNA/biology, can also have profound complicating effects, and not necessarily just in terms of carrying significant moral authority but in altering one’s opportunities and outlook, even altering one’s physiology and thoughts.
Can we ever really achieve completeness?
Can we ever really achieve completeness?
I never said it was something to be achieved or even attempted. “For completeness” was a tribute to it.
And I didn’t say you did, and you didn’t say I did, ad infinitum, good night.
Now that you’ve explained how natural law fits into all this, I’m wondering if you might be willing to explain how the Catholic doctrine of infallibility fits in as well.
It would seem to me that on issues that have been infallibly declared true, a Catholic cannot say that his conscience tells him otherwise (for then what would be the point of infallibility, which is the assurance that yes, the Church has got it right?).
On those particular issues, it seems to me that following his conscience over Church teaching necessarily requires him to reject the doctrine of infallibility and thus the Church itself.
Do I have that right?
Here is Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (very traditional)..from the intro (treasure the link with your life)
link: http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm
Pan down toward the bottom just before “ยง 9. Theological Censures”…there is a great paragraph:
“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”
Shaun
My point…just above in citing Ott… is that no Catholic has the right to favor his conscience over the infallible but…but…the infallible is habitually overstated within the Catholic conversation. There are people who think the current stand on the death penalty is infallible even though it depends in essence on whether modern penology is really protecting people which is a statment not of theology but of the social sciences.
Abortion’s condemnation in my view is now infallible due to the wording in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae which is clear to me while a theologian might say it still falls short of infallible and he might not be censured by Rome. That is why Ott above should be treasured though Paul VI departs from him in that on Jan.12,1966 during the audience, Pope Paul VI noted that nothing infallible had been proposed at Vatican II. Not all Councils are dogmatic in Pope Paul’s view even if they use titles with that word in them for subsections. A theology teacher at Vox Nova saw and stated that Lumen Gentium was infallible while Pope Paul VI said no about the whole Council.
But once something is infallible, to choose otherwise is to choose to leave Catholicism and perhaps in good faith…but one has left Catholicism if the dissent is permanent on an infallible position.
Shaun,
Catholic dogma is based on the tradition of men. It is neither Christian nor logical. Study the Bible and show yourself approved. Great Catholic minds left the church and became founders of Protestant denominations. Any church that teaches that the Word of God is infallible is a good church to attend. So don’t let the 3 Parts of Conscience and Authority dupe you into believing false doctrine.
Shaun,
On whose authority do you accept the Bible? Do you accept the Council of Carthage that canonized Sacred Scripture in AD 397?
The Bible is not infallible, as no inanimate object is capable of making a decision; what the Bible is is inerrant.
I wonder whose authority RC accepts for interpreting the Bible?
I apologize — I didn’t intend to address my message above to Shaun, but to recoveringCatholic.
My apologies.
Greg
“On whose authority do you accept the Bible?”
Yes, who told you the Bible (and not the Koran or something else) was the inerrant Word of God?
Who told them? And why do you believe them? Or is this a position you reached on your own authority?
Did you come to believe in the authority of scripture first, and then come to believe in Jesus on it’s testimony, or did you accept Jesus as the Son of God and then accept the Bible because it testifies about him?
Just curious.
“I’m saying that concupiscence complicates things, and only God can can ascertain the vincibility or invicibility of particular errors, the culpability or inculpability of a particular person’s failure to discern truths written on our hearts.”
Do you think that moral certainty can be reached by a panel of “experts”, then, on similar matters of “conscience” or on “motives and the like”, in annulments, for example, when, as you state, and to which I might agree, that only God can ascertain “truths written on our hearts”?
Because, honestly, that is what is going on in these tribunals, more or less, mind reading and judging motives, that likely are know only to God and as such are open to serious errors of elucidation, even under the best of circumstances.
Just a thought, SDG.
Vincibility or invincibility of particular errors or failings is, in general, God’s purview. Whether or not a particular error or failing has occurred is often within human competence.
If a couple at the time of their wedding lacked right intention, God knows and will judge how and why this failure came to be. It is up to human authorities — fallible, but hopefully honest and capable of arriving at actionable moral certainty — to determine that in fact the failure was present, and the marriage invalid.
I wish I could say that it consistently works out like that in practice. I know all too well, from close personal experience, that it doesn’t. All I can say is, God will judge our human authorities too, and for many there will be millstones.