spetter@uunet.uu.net (Scott Spetter) (09/27/90)
I should preference my remarks by saying that I am by no means an
authority on Canon Law. Indeed, my entry into Roman Catholism is
rather recently, although the search began long ago. (Does anyone
hear Thomas Merton???)
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a Young Adults panel discussion,
sponsored by the Archdiocese of San Francico. It was entitled:
"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Catholic Church...
But Were Too Pious to Ask!"
The panel members were some of the major Church authorities for
the Bay Area - including a nun who holds the equivalent of a
doctorate in Canon Law, and who actively researches questions for
the local Tribunal.
At one point in the discussion, it was pointed out that if we, as
Roman Catholics, feel a serious conflict between something mandated
by the Church, and what we feel in our hearts, we should pray about
the issue. The Bible should be consulted, and we would be wise to also
seek the advice of some people more versed in the mandate and the
rationale behind it. If these steps are sincerely followed, and we
still feel the conflict, we MUST listen to the words that come from
our own hearts.
This is considered one of the best kept Catholic secrets, although I
assure you, there is no one in authority within the Church actively
trying to supress this information.
It is a sort of 'elastic clause' in Church doctrine. When I first learned
about it, it did a great deal to reaffirm my own comfort with the Church's
position.
I hope that if this is new information for you also, that it will give
you a positive thought about our Church, be you a member, a fellow
Chrisitian, or just an interested bystander.
God bless you all,
Scott
bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.27.04.14.19.1990.15021@athos.rutgers.edu> ames!ultra!!spetter@uunet.uu.net (Scott Spetter) writes: > >At one point in the discussion, it was pointed out that if we, as >Roman Catholics, feel a serious conflict between something mandated >by the Church, and what we feel in our hearts, we should pray about >the issue. The Bible should be consulted, and we would be wise to also >seek the advice of some people more versed in the mandate and the >rationale behind it. If these steps are sincerely followed, and we >still feel the conflict, we MUST listen to the words that come from >our own hearts. Sorry. If your conscience is properly formed then you will not experience any conlict between the words of your heart and the teaching of the Church. That is not to say that you will _like_ or _prefer_ what the Church teaches. You are obliged to properly form your conscience. >This is considered one of the best kept Catholic secrets, although I >assure you, there is no one in authority within the Church actively >trying to supress this information. Well it sounds like it is in extreme conflict with the doctrine of the authority of the Church -- it sounds like just what my protestant friends do when they are confronted with an issue. >It is a sort of 'elastic clause' in Church doctrine. Exactly why I am extraordinarily suspicious of it. > When I first learned >about it, it did a great deal to reaffirm my own comfort with the Church's >position. I have never expected to be `comfortable' with the Church's position. I have expected to be challenged by it; but even when in disagreement with it to follow it to the best of my ability (which is not as good as it should be sometimes), and if I fail, I try, try again. >I hope that if this is new information for you also, that it will give >you a positive thought about our Church, be you a member, a fellow >Chrisitian, or just an interested bystander. No, I see it as just another attempt to limit the teaching authority of the magesterium. It is symptomatic of the problems in the Roman Catholic Church in America. Regards, -- Will | If no set of moral ideas were truer or bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | better than any other, there would be no bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | sense in preferring civilised morality to with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | savage morality... -- C.S. Lewis
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/03/90)
In article <Sep.30.20.58.58.1990.16386@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <Sep.27.04.14.19.1990.15021@athos.rutgers.edu> ames!ultra!!spetter@uunet.uu.net (Scott Spetter) writes: >> >>At one point in the discussion, it was pointed out that if we, as >>Roman Catholics, feel a serious conflict between something mandated >>by the Church, and what we feel in our hearts, we should pray about >>the issue. The Bible should be consulted, and we would be wise to also >>seek the advice of some people more versed in the mandate and the >>rationale behind it. If these steps are sincerely followed, and we >>still feel the conflict, we MUST listen to the words that come from >>our own hearts. > >Sorry. If your conscience is properly formed then you will not >experience any conlict between the words of your heart and the >teaching of the Church. That is not to say that you will _like_ >or _prefer_ what the Church teaches. You are obliged to properly >form your conscience. > Sorry, but this could not be more wrong! We do not "form" our conscience, rather we *follow* our conscience! It is only through our conscience, our intuitive perception, that we are able to perceive the Will of God, and by no other means! When someone tells you otherwise, that you must "form" your opinions or conscience in accordance with *their* teaching, they are 100% wrong! And must have some agenda in mind. Otherwise, they would only encourage you to think and to choose freely for yourself, according to your own conscience. God did not need any intermediary when He created us, and He does not need any intermediary in order to convey His Will to us. Rather, we can learn to perceive the Will of God in *everything* we experience throughout our lives! Perhaps we do not always want to bear the responsibility of having to think for ourselves, but then this is our own free will to surrender this function to others, and we must thus bear the consequences of our spiritual indolence. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (10/07/90)
[Will Bralick had refered to a conscience as being "properly formed". Such a conscience will not have any conflict with the (Roman Catholic) Church. Mark Sandrock objects that we don't form our conscience, but follow it. He sees the conscience as intuitive perception, whic should not be bound to anyone else's teachings. --clh] Well, I guess that we've heard both extremes. The danger with Mark's position is that there is the danger to reject church and rely solely on individual conscience. Taken to its logical conclusion, one can reject even the Bible in favor of conscience. This is certainly not the intention of the Roman Catholic position. Let me suggest some middle ground. Our conscience is in some sense our perception of God and His will for us. But it is often difficult for most of us to even hear our conscience, let alone listen to it, since it is drowned out by our own sin and our own agenda for satisfying our needs. Fortunately, God reveals Himself to us not only through our conscience, but through Jesus Christ, through the Bible, and through the Church. It is through these sources of revelation where we learn God's voice, and we learn how to listen to His voice in our hearts, in our conscience. This is what the Church means for us to inform our conscience. If we have an informed conscience, and we hear something which goes against the teachings of the Church or of the Bible, and if after consulting others in the Church and praying to God for guidance, we still hear that same something, then we are obliged to follow our conscience, because no one can judge what goes on when a person stands alone before God but God Himself. Alex Macalalad
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (10/07/90)
I respond to Mark Sandrock that He created us through our parents. Further, His last discourse (he is the vine, we are the branches) and the commissioning of Peter and the Apostles on several occasions show the need for a Church to aid us in the search for truth. Further, there is fraternal correction and the responsibility that we love one another. However, a conscience is necessary because we are each individually responsible for how we respond to His teaching through the Church and through Him in our hearts through the sacraments and His inspiration. May His peace be with you, Michael
kw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin Whitley) (10/07/90)
Talking about the idea that one may follow one's conscience even if it is contrary to church teaching,. Will Bralick said: >Sorry. If your conscience is properly formed then you will not >experience any conlict between the words of your heart and the >teaching of the Church. That is not to say that you will _like_ >or _prefer_ what the Church teaches. You are obliged to properly >form your conscience. > Mark Sandrock said: >Sorry, but this could not be more wrong! >We do not "form" our conscience, rather we *follow* our conscience! >It is only through our conscience, our intuitive perception, that we are >able to perceive the Will of God, and by no other means! I don't think that either of these positions is correct. It is 1) neccesary to properly form our conscience (which includes sincere attention to the teachings of the church, prayer, consultation with tradition, discussion with other people who have experience in the matter at hand, etc.) and 2) once our conscience is formed if we are still in not in accord with the church's teachings, we must follow our conscience. I put forward the example of the Inquisition, which today, by most of us, is considered to have been an error. At the time many of the people involved were 1) following the dictates of the church, 2) following their consciences. I would argue (against Mr. Bralick) that the church was in error and that we should be aware that such error could occur again. I would argue (against Mr. Sandrock) that the people's consciences were in error - they were not properly formed. This is a dangerous idea actually. The ability to put one's conscience before the teachings of the church is very often seized upon as an easy way around difficult church teachings. I am myself very suspiscous of any tendency in myself to disagree with the church. When I study physics I don't disagree with those more learned than myself; when I discuss with a mechanic what needs to be done to my car I don't disagree. I operate on the principle that for most matters the church is maintaining an important body of wisdom and knowledge aquired over centuries by many men and women more intelligent, wise, loving and holy than I am. To simply disregard this is flirting with pride and foolishness. Nonetheless, God speaks to our hearts. After much effort (and if the effort is not painful I doubt that the work has truly been done) we may find our consciences in conflict with the church. Then we must obey our conscience. When God calls, we MUST follow, though we leave mother and father, spouse and children, country and even church behind. Yours in the peace of Christ, Kevin Whitley kw1r@andrew.cmu.edu
bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (10/07/90)
[Someone (probably Will Bralick, but there are enough widgets in the original that it's hard to be sure) commented that there should not be a conflict between your conscience and the (Roman Catholic) Church, because your conscience should be properly formed. Mark Sandrock objected to the concept of conscience being "formed". For him it is intuitive perception, and should not be subjected to external authority. --clh] Sorry, but "conscience" is not "intuitive perception." Please note that Mr. Spetter was discussing events at a meeting of Roman Catholics. Thus I answered from the perspective of Roman Catholicism. It seems that Mr. Sandrock is responding to my contribution from a perspective other than that of a Roman Catholic, viz. he is not using the word "conscience" as a Catholic uses it. conscience - the judgement of our reason as to whether an act is good or bad. Note in particular the words _judgement_ and _reason_. What Mr. Sandrock seems to be referring to is some sort of spiritual sense or charism which is extra-rational -- that is, not at all what Catholics refer to when speaking of "conscience." | When someone tells you otherwise, that you must "form" your opinions or | conscience in accordance with *their* teaching, they are 100% wrong! And | must have some agenda in mind. Otherwise, they would only encourage you to | think and to choose freely for yourself, according to your own conscience. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Church has teaching authority in the areas of morals and doctrine. The Second Vatican Council stated: "In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. The Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth which is Christ Himself and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself." [Dignitatis Humanae] Thus a Christian has the right and duty to follow his conscience, but also the responsibility to form his conscience in accord with truth in the light of faith. [Lawler, et al, _The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults_, 2d ed., 1983, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, IN; pg 272] Also, No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared, [cf Qui Pluribus, Singulari Quadam, Casti Connubii, etc.] that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the apostles His divine commandments, constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation. [Pope Paul VI, _Humanae Vitae_, July 25, 1968] To reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church is to reject the Roman Catholic Church, and this is (I think) the essence of Protestantism (including, for example, Anglicans). For a Roman Catholic to reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. regarding the use of artifical means of birth control) is at least intellectually dishonest and potentially sacrilegious. Roman Catholicism is not a roll-your-own religion. | God did not need any intermediary when He created us, and He does not need | any intermediary in order to convey His Will to us. Rather, we can learn to | perceive the Will of God in *everything* we experience throughout our lives! God doesn't require the intermediation of a book, either. Christ instituted a Church; He didn't write a book. | Perhaps we do not always want to bear the responsibility of having to think | for ourselves, but then this is our own free will to surrender this function | to others, and we must thus bear the consequences of our spiritual indolence. Gee, this is a nasty, little sneer isn't it? Smacks of not a little anti-Catholic bigotry, as well. Hmm... Irresponsible, slavish, and indolent, eh? I choose to accept the responsibility to form my conscience in accordance with the authoritative teaching of the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ -- the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Best regards, Will bralick@sol4.cs.psu.edu It was a curious idea ... that the Church should adapt the faith to suit the world rather than the other way around, or that the "contemporary" intellectual ... should expect to find being a Christian comfortable. -- Anne Roche Muggeridge
bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (10/18/90)
In article <Oct.6.21.38.26.1990.1043@athos.rutgers.edu> you write:
`
` I put forward the example of the Inquisition, which today, by most of
` us, is considered to have been an error.
Persons who are not Roman Catholics will necessarily disagree with
the following. Heck, some Roman Catholics may disagree.
Just for the sake of argument, let us _momentarily_ grant that the
Spanish Inquisition was the result of authentic Roman Catholic
teaching. While I agree that most of us believe that the Spanish
Inquisition was an error, as a Roman Catholic I must believe that
the Roman Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, is author-
itative. As such, it teaches with the authority granted it by
Jesus Christ; so to argue that the Church was in error is to argue
either that Christ established an institution which failed or that
the Church taught just what it was supposed to do and that we disagree
with what the Holy Ghost has led the Church to sanction.
In the first case, one argues that the Roman Catholic Church is _not_
authoritative and that puts one squarely in the protestant camp.
In the second case, one admits that the Roman Catholic Church is
authoritative, but that one elevates one's own judgement over that
of God (embodied in Church doctrine) hence reiterate the fall of
man which was the result of just such arrogance.
` involved were 1) following the dictates of the church,
I revoke my earlier supposition that such was the case, because I
don't think that this is clear. I am no historian, but I thought
that the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition resulted from the abuse
of the Inquisition by the Spanish court. Thus I don't think that
either the Inquisitors or the Spanish court had properly formed
their consciences on this issue. It seems to me that the Spanish
Inquisition was primarily serving the interests of the Spanish
state, not the Church.
It is imporant to not confuse the excesses and abuses of individual
members of the Church with the authentic teaching of the Church.
` 2) following
` their consciences. I would argue (against Mr. Bralick) that the church
` was in error and that we should be aware that such error could occur
` again.
Today we can read the Church's authoritative teachings for ourselves
(those of us who can still read) and thus readily see when elements of
the Church (clergy and/or lay) are twisting the teachings of the Church
(e.g. Charles Curran). Hence my comments vis-a-vis the "escape clause"
discussed in the original posting in this thread.
` I would argue (against Mr. Sandrock) that the people's
` consciences were in error - they were not properly formed.
I think that we agree here, the Inquisitors and the politicians who
used them followed their consciences contrary to Church teaching.
I will need (the time to) research this more thoroughly, if we are
going to discuss this issue at length. Perhaps the whole question
(of Church authority and obedience) is too narrow for such a diverse
group to be interested ... perhaps a Roman Catholic mailing list
would be a useful tool for taking this sort of discussion offline.
` Nonetheless, God speaks to our hearts. After much effort ...
` we may find our consciences in conflict with the church.
` Then we must obey our conscience. When God calls, we MUST follow,
` though we leave mother and father, spouse and children, country
` and even church behind.
I don't think that God will call you away from His own Church.
This notion ought to set off sirens and flashing lights. For a
Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic chruch is Christ's own and He
cannot be of two minds on a moral or doctrinal issue. For a Roman
Catholic, the Church's authority is a sine qua non of Roman Catholicism.
Best regards,
--
Will \ Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
bralick@cs.psu.edu \ upon will and appetite be placed somewhere,
bralick@sol4.cs.psu.edu \ and the less of it there is within, the more
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; \ there must be without. -- Edmund Burke
[I think you're making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself.
As far as I know, no Catholic doctrine claims that officials of the
Roman Catholic Church make no errors. Quite the contrary. The claim
is rather than the Church is able to make authoritative pronouncements
on matters of faith and morals. It does this after careful
consideration. The process looks a lot like one of "convergence".
There are many issues on which the Church has not converged, and many
cases where individuals or groups do not correctly apply doctrines on
which there are authoritative views. Thus I see no problem even from
a rather conservative Catholic point of view in saying that those
members of the Church responsible for the Inquisition erred. I don't
know enough about the history of the period to know exactly what the
abuses were and what led to them. But what I know is consistent with
simple abuse of power by those in authority, something which the
Church does not claim immunity from. I don't see any need to claim
that there were doctrinal errors involved. --clh]sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/18/90)
arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: > Well, I guess that we've heard both extremes. The danger with Mark's position > is that there is the danger to reject church and rely solely on individual > conscience. Taken to its logical conclusion, one can reject even the Bible > in favor of conscience. This is certainly not the intention of the > Roman Catholic position. Let me suggest some middle ground. > There is no middle ground. Your implication is that someone could possibly be lead into error by one's conscience, when in fact it is *always* exactly the converse: one is lead into error when one chooses not to listen to one's conscience (or inner voice)! > Our conscience is in some sense our perception of God and His will for us. > But it is often difficult for most of us to even hear our conscience, let > alone listen to it, since it is drowned out by our own sin and our own > agenda for satisfying our needs. > Not "in some sense" but in *every* sense is our conscience our personal perceiving of the Will of God! Every creature has a guidance in Creation, including man, to believe otherwise would be to doubt the perfection of the Creator and of His wonderful Creation! > Fortunately, God reveals Himself to us not only through our conscience, but > through Jesus Christ, through the Bible, and through the Church. It is > through these sources of revelation where we learn God's voice, and we > learn how to listen to His voice in our hearts, in our conscience. This > is what the Church means for us to inform our conscience. Fortunately, God does reveal Himself to us in every aspect of His Creation. Also, His Will has been brought to men's attention at various times through- out our history, most notably through the Message of His Son, Jesus, but also through the teachings of many prophets, called ones, and forerunners through- out the ages. Unfortunately, time and again, this pure teachings have been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrecorded. Insofar as mankind has gone astray in the course of its intended, natural development, we do all need the help of the *pure* teachings from the Will of God in order to find our way. Insofar as the teachings of Jesus have been correctly recorded in the NT, it is a most valuable source of enlightenment for mankind. Insofar as the teachings of Jesus were misundertood at the time they were recorded, there is a potential for error and confusion. The same can be said for each church which bases its teachings upon the various human interpretations of the recorded teachings of Jesus from the New Testament--there is a potential for good, but also one for errors and confusion. Far be it from the Lord, however, to leave us without the necessary help in our hour of need. For all those who believe: "When the need is greatest, God's help will be nearest to you!" I would strongly urge to investigate the work: "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin, as to the great help it brings to mankind in the setting right of distorted concepts, in particular in the full clarification and continuation of the teaching of Christ, as it truly was, not as mankind has choosen to make of it! In fact, our conscience, our spiritual intuitive perception, does not need any "forming" from without, but rather only needs to be "uncovered" of all the errors and dross which we have allowed to "veil" it. Then it will flare up naturally and joyfully of its own accord to unite with the spiritual and to illuminate our path through life! And part of the "dross" which tends to keep us spiritually oppressed is any teaching which goes against the Will of God in Creation. If we are spiritually alert -- like the wise virgins-- we shall then be able to recognize and to absorb the truth when it finally comes our way. Otherwise, we shall pass it by in the delusion of already knowing better! It is our "inner voice" which allows us to find the truth. Otherwise, we leave ourselves at the mercy of the will of others, we choose to surrender our precious birthright of having the free will to choose in each situation, which naturally brings with it a corresponding responsibility! On a related note, what is the big concern with scholarship when it is a matter of spiritual values and of the Will of God. Don't we know that the way to the Highest is open to everone? And that earthly erudition is not the way thereto? Would it change what I say if I had three PhD's? Or if I had none? Consider, who were the first to recognize Jesus? It was the simple people, was it not? Fisherman, many of them! And then consider, what was the attitude of many of the scholars at that time? The scribes and Pharisees? Many of them fought against Jesus and His Message of salvation. Many of them were His worst enemies. This should tell us all something. And now, who are the people who are going to "form" our conscience for us? Are they the simple people, or are they the scholars? I think the words of Martin Luther at the Imperial Diet in Worms, on April 18, 1521, when he was called upon to recant his teachings, are most instructive: "Unless I am convinced and conquered by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, or by clear rational arguments, I shall continue to be conquered by the Scriptural passages quoted by me, and my conscience will remain captive in the Word of God; and I cannot and will not recant, for it is hard, harmful, and dangerous to act against one's conscience. So help me God, Amen!" (Propylaeen World History, Vol. 7) And what was the response of the Emperor Charles V to Martin Luthor? "Thus I am determined to adhere to all that has been achieved since the Council of Constance. For it is certain that a single monk is mistaken when he opposes the opinion of the whole of Christendom, since otherwise, Christendom would necessarily erred for a thousand years or more." (Propylaeen World History, Vol. 7) My point here is not to raise the issues of the Catholic Church versus the Protestant Church, for I myself have nothing to do with either of these Churches. My point is to illustrate that each one finds the way to the truth on his own. We alone are responsible for *every* idea or teaching that we choose to accept or reject, regardless of its origin. We alone have to find our how to sift the "dross" from the "gold", keeping one, discarding the other. And our inner voice, our conscience, is our faithful guide in this endeavor. The truth has a sound of its own. It "rings true" when we hear it. It does *not* require long years of study and pondering. It is simple, clear and natural. Children typically have this ability. As children we easily can detect the true from the false, right from wrong. Often we lose this ability as adults, however. We surrender it to the opinions of others. We stop experiencing and start intellectualizing, and then wonder why things are not running better for us. For this reason, Jesus also told us to "become like little children". In other words, to become simple, clear and natural in our thoughts, words, and deeds! Jesus also did say: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself..." In the Revelation, John describes the Holy Spirit as "him, which is to come" (1,4). He mediates the Grace "from him which is and which was, and which is to come ... and from Jesus Christ". Quite obviously he is speaking of two Persons, Him "which is to come" *and* Jesus! It is for the fulfillment of this prophecy that we should be looking at this time in the course of world events. Best wishes, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/18/90)
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: > I respond to Mark Sandrock that He created us through our parents. > Further, His last discourse (he is the vine, we are the branches) and > the commissioning of Peter and the Apostles on several occasions show > the need for a Church to aid us in the search for truth. Further, > there is fraternal correction and the responsibility that we love one > another. However, a conscience is necessary because we are each > individually responsible for how we respond to His teaching through > the Church and through Him in our hearts through the sacraments and > His inspiration. And I respond that we are each spiritual beings, and therefore first existed in the spiritual realm before journeying to this earth. The same can be said about the Creation Happening described in Genesis: the account given is of the first, or spiritual, Creation. The physical, material world only later on came gradually into existence, in accordance with the natural laws of evolution and development, as already recognized by scientific endeavor. Our parents did not "create" us. They simply helped to bring about the gross material (physical) vessel in which we dwell for a time. This is two different things entirely. The "breath of life" which is breathed into the physical body is our spirit which originated in the Spiritual Realm, and this part is what constitues the actual person. We live only for a time on this earth, and must leave the physical body behind when we depart. If Jesus said that He was the vine and we were the branches, then this makes sense to me, and does not appear to me to support the claim for the need of an earthly organization to lead us into the truth. There is a natural urge for people to unite in fellowship, to strengthen and share insights with one another, but any such union in no way relieves each one of us of our individual responsibility for what we believe, say, and do with our lives. To be more specific this time: God did not require a church to create us, and no other person or organization is necessary for us to perceive and to follow the Will of God for our own lives. Human organizations and the true Will of God are not at all necessarily one and the same. This is not to say that much good has not come about through various church organizations, but this in no way removes the responsibility from anyone for what they choose to believe about God and His Creation. Our highest duty is first and foremost to God, and not to any earthly organization. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/19/90)
kw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin Whitley) writes: > ... > I put forward the example of the Inquisition, which today, by most of > us, is considered to have been an error. At the time many of the people > involved were 1) following the dictates of the church, 2) following > their consciences. I would argue (against Mr. Bralick) that the church > was in error and that we should be aware that such error could occur > again. I would argue (against Mr. Sandrock) that the people's > consciences were in error - they were not properly formed. First, if the church can be in error, then how can it be depended upon to "properly form" one's conscience? Second, if the church can be wrong, and one's conscience can be wrong, then what hope is there? The answer quite simply is this: that one's conscience can never be wrong! But we often choose to ignore it for any of a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that we do not exert ourselves enough to develop our ability to understand it in the first place! So, although our conscience cannot be wrong, we ourselves can be (and often are, no?). Why would one say -- in the case of the Inquisition -- that the peoples' consciences were in error? These people had no conscience. They had deadened and buried their consciences, and so could act in such direct contradiction and hostility to the actual Will of God! Think about it--these activities were cold, cruel, calculating and inhuman. How could anyone say they had anything to do with "conscience" or with spirituality or humanity of *any* kind? This notion is a travesty of the very concept of conscience! These were evil ones, acting under the cloak of earthly legality and respectability. *In no way* did or could these people represent God, although they may have represented a particular earthly church. As an analogy for the use of one's conscience, perhaps we can consider the experience of a young child who is first learning to understand the language in which his parents speak to him. The child's ears (our conscience) do not need to be formed, they are already (typically) quite prepared for the task. The parents' language (Creation) also needs no forming, for it already exists in a form suitable for expressing the parent's volition (the Will of God). What the child needs are his own efforts, and also at times explanations from his parents (teachings of prophets and called ones) in order to develop his ability to understand his parents volition (the Will of God). If one wants to call this a "forming" of the child's ability, then I agree, but my point is that the primary responsibility for the "forming" is with the child himself. And furthermore, that the child must learn to perform this task (the understanding) directly, rather than to reply upon anyone else to "interpret" his parents' language and volition to him. In the case of mankind, however, it so happened that we did not learn to know the Language of the Lord in Creation as we were meant to. We chose a wrong development, one which lead away from the Will of God. For this reason, it became imperative that the Son of God, Jesus, come to show mankind the way back to learning to know the Will of God in Creation. Because of the hostility and indifference which with mankind responded over- all to Jesus, He recognized that more help would be necessary for mankind at the time of the World (Final) Judgement. For this reason, Jesus foretold the future Son of Man, to whom He also referred as the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter. This prophecy was not well understood at the time by those around Jesus, and this lack of understanding has continued until today. Jesus also admonished mankind with the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. The wise virgins are those who keep the ability to perceive intuitively, i.e., the ability to hear their inner voice or conscience, (the lamp in the parable), in good working order, so that they will be able to recognize the bridegroom (the Son of Man) *through His Word* at the right time for their own salvation. The Lord wants us to stand free and knowing in Creation. We are each meant to learn to understand the Divine Will in Creation (the Language of the Lord). This is the reason for our journeying through Creation for the sake of our spiritual development. For it is only those who have completed the course of their spiritual development (and learned to know this Language) who are then able to return, fully matured, to their origin, to Paradise, to the Spiritual Realm of Pure Joy! Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (10/19/90)
bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > The Second Vatican Council stated: "In the formation of > their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully > to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. These are very carefully chosen words. It is well set out what within the body of RC discourse is "sacred and certain doctrine" and what is not. It is considered impossible that a "properly formed" conscience, i.e. one formed in communion with Christ and His church, would depart from "sacred and certain doctrine". This not nearly as restrictive as some would like to portray it. The vast majority of "Canon law", encyclicals etc. is essentially ephemeral and do not constitute "sacred and certain doctrine". They are intended to challenging, thought provoking and encouraging, not constraining and inhibiting. The positions stated within them is open to change, though this will not happen very often. Generally I find I do agree with the positions held by the Church hierarchy. They are usually intellegent, well-informed and devote people whose considered opinions are to be taken seriously. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/19/90)
Will Bralick writes: >According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Church has teaching authority >in the areas of morals and doctrine. Teaching authority is not the issue so much as is the quality of what is taught. >To reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church is to reject the Roman >Catholic Church, and this is (I think) the essence of Protestantism >(including, for example, Anglicans). Your claims here are overstated. The essence of protestantism is denial of Rome's *unique* claims. Anglicans do not "reject the RC church"; what we do reject is its claim to unique authority and to infallibility. >For a Roman Catholic to reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church >(e.g. regarding the use of artifical means of birth control) is at least >intellectually dishonest and potentially sacrilegious. But the very passages you quote disagree with this. The official teaching is as has been stated: if you are instructed and are still sure of your disagreement, you are bound to follow your conscience and disobey the church. Whether this is sacrilegious or dishonest is irrelevant. Indeed, the teaching would seem to imply that intellectual sincerity is an important component here. Perhaps you might want to consider the judgement you are tempting in what appears to me to be a misrepresentation of church teaching. -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/19/90)
In article <Oct.6.23.13.20.1990.1701@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > ... > > God doesn't require the intermediation of a book, either. > > Christ instituted a Church; He didn't write a book. > And at that time, people did not expect a Divine Message to come to them through the son of a humble carpenter, did they? Perhaps some passed Him by on this account, because of their own preconceived ideas about who or what a Redeemer would be. It just might happen that our preconceived ideas could also cause us one day to pass by the opportunity of knowing the Word of the Son of Man, when His time has come... It just goes to show how little we really know, now doesn't it? Without true humility, we cannot receive the help we need from the Lord. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/21/90)
In article <Oct.6.23.13.20.1990.1701@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >> >> Sorry, but "conscience" is not "intuitive perception." >> >> ... >> >> conscience - the judgement of our reason as to whether an act is >> good or bad. >> >> Note in particular the words _judgement_ and _reason_. >> If we want to talk about *reason*, then we must in the first place bring the notion of *spirit* into the picture. Reason consists of the cooperation of spirit and intellect in a person: the spirit leading, and the intellect serving as a tool that is necessary for earthly life. Without the guidance of the spiritual intuitive perception, the intellect goes immediately astray, and stays there, for it is lost on its own! Intuitive perception is the broader concept, and "conscience" is one aspect of it. That is, our "conscience" is perceived intuitively within us, but originates from outside of us. This explains why conscience is *not* under our control, and why it does not need to be "formed", but only "awakened" or "uncovered", just as we can also choose to "bury" it. (The intuitive perception, that is, and *therewith* also our conscience.) When Jesus admonished us to "watch and pray", He was referring specifically to the ability of our spirit to peceive intuitively all the influences that approach us from without, as well as those emanating from us out to others. In the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the lamp represents the earthly intellect, which absolutely requires the "oil" of the spiritual intuitive perception in order to work correctly, and thus to illuminate the path through life for each person. When it is said "unless a man be born again...", then this is referring to the absolute need for our own spiritual awakening, so that we can become capable of hearing and being guided by our intuitive perception. When it is said that "The first impression is always right!", then this is simply referring to the inherant ability of the intuitive perception to perceive the truth about a given situation. When it is said "Let the dead bury their dead", then this is referring to those who have "buried" their intuitive perception, yet who presume to lead and to teach others what they themselves do not know. >> What Mr. Sandrock seems to be referring to is some sort of spiritual >> sense or charism which is extra-rational -- that is, not at all what >> Catholics refer to when speaking of "conscience." How little we know ourselves and our God! The Will of God is Spirit! We ourselves are spiritual creatures, who dwell for a time within the physical world ("...and breathed into them the breath of life"). Presumably we all long to return someday to Paradise, which itself is of course spiritual! ("My Kingdom is not of this world!") Without the use of our spiritual intuitive perception, it is impossible for us to know the Will of God. For the intellect itself is incapable of grasping anything of the spiritual--only the spiritual intuitive perception itself is capable of perceiving the Will of the Creator (which is spiritual). God's Truth, His Will, is all around us. It is shining down upon everything that exists. But we can only learn to perceive it and absorb it by becoming spiritual! By awakening to our "inner voice", to our intuitive perception! The knowledge given in the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", is there for exactly this purpose: to show us the way to becoming spiritual, as we should have been all along, and therewith to help us to learn to become capable of clearly perceiving God's Will in all of life! (What can be called learning "The language of the Lord", since all of Creation *is* His Language!) This process is not a "forming", but simply an "awakening" to life, to God's Will, which has actually been there all along, were we to know it, and which is naturally quite independent of any and all human opinion. With warm regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (10/22/90)
>Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 19-Oct-90 Re: One of the best kept se.. Charley Wingate@mimsy.um (1648) > >>According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Church has teaching authority > >>in the areas of morals and doctrine. > > >Teaching authority is not the issue so much as is the quality of what is > >taught. > > >>To reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church is to reject the Roman > >>Catholic Church, and this is (I think) the essence of Protestantism > >>(including, for example, Anglicans). > > >Your claims here are overstated. > > >The essence of protestantism is denial of Rome's *unique* claims. Anglicans > >do not "reject the RC church"; what we do reject is its claim to unique > >authority and to infallibility. Here's another Catholic position: The Roman Catholic Church is charged with spreading the Word. It has authority because it is a Holy institution. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit's guidance provides it with a measure of infallibility. This is by no means a claim to constant, universal infallibility. However, it does mean that the RC Church _as_a_teaching_authority_ will never, *ever* officially promote an erroneous doctrine as a core article of the faith. It doesn't mean that the Popes are founts of virtue, or that the members of the Church will never do things which are sinful. But it _does_ mean that if something is wrong or untrue, the Church will never say that it is "infallibly true". Anyone can accept or reject the Church's teachings, because we all have the power of free will (even Catholics have free will...despite what _some_ Catholic priests would have them believe! :) ) There is room for differences of opinion within the Catholic Church. We must all live by our consciences; but we must always be mindful of the Church's teachings. The original essence of protestantism was a valid protest of the practices of the large and corrupt Catholic Church of the time.The goal of the protestant reformation was a reform of the Church, and not the creation of seperate Churches. Unfortunately, things didn't turn out that way. In a recent examination of the Martin Luther's work, done by Lutheran theologians in Germany, it was stated that many of Martin Luther's demands and complaints have been met in the modern RC Church. The original "essence" of Protestantism is no longer a reason for schism. Ideally, it should never have been a reason for schism, but merely a cause for self-examination and revision within the Catholic Church. The modern Catholic Church, since Vatican II, is in just such a period. There are more contemporary reasons for the perpetuation of the division between Protestants and Catholics - some of them actual, some are the result of mutual misunderstanding and some merely a product of hard heartedness. But we are all still Christians nonetheless.
bralick@orofarne.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (10/22/90)
In article <Oct.19.04.23.15.1990.12898@paul.rutgers.edu> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: |Will Bralick writes: |>For a Roman Catholic to reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church |>(e.g. regarding the use of artifical means of birth control) is at least |>intellectually dishonest and potentially sacrilegious. | |But the very passages you quote disagree with this. I don't think so. It is intellectually dishonest to say that one is a Roman Catholic and then reject the teaching of the Church. The authority of the Church is a sine qua non of the Church and thus one cannot reject it without rejecting the Church itself. |The official teaching |is as has been stated: if you are instructed and are still sure of your |disagreement, you are bound to follow your conscience and disobey the |church. Are you claiming that the above is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church? Where can it be found? You can't quote Hans Kung or Charles Curran et al here -- it has to be from the Church. Since the Magisterium of the Church was created by Christ the Lord to enlighten conscience, then to appeal to that conscience precisely to contest the truth of what is taught by the Magisterium implies rejection of the Catholic concept both of the Magisterium and moral conscience. -- John Paul II [Nov 1988, to Second International Congress on Moral Theology] |Whether this is sacrilegious or dishonest is irrelevant. Sacrilegious in the sense of receiving a sacrament (e.g. communion) when one is in a state of sin. |Indeed, |the teaching would seem to imply that intellectual sincerity is an important |component here. The point is that one has the dual obligation of forming one's conscience and following it -- and when one notices that one's conscience is in conflict with the teaching of the Magisterium (and one is obliged to be informed as to what that teaching is) then one must decide whether to elevate one's judgement (not conscience) above that of the Church. ...[I]t cannot be said that the faithful have embarked on a diligent search for truth if they do not take into account what the Magisterium teaches, or if, by putting it on the same level as any other source of knowledge, one makes oneself judge, or if in doubt, one follows one's own opinion or that of theologians, preferring it to the sure teaching of the Magisterium. -- John Paul II [Nov 1988, Op Cit] |Perhaps you might want to consider the judgement you are tempting in what |appears to me to be a misrepresentation of church teaching. Well, I don't think that I am misrepresenting the Church's teaching. Where has the Magisterium taught (not the opinion of some theologian) that its truth may be disregarded based on what a person believes his conscience is telling him? It is true, that I am _not_ representing the personal opinion of those Roman Catholics (clergy and lay alike) who believe that personal opinion transcends the teaching of the Church in the areas of morals and doctrine. Nor am I representing my own personal opinion. Since the Church enjoys the _charisma veritas certum_ (gift of certain truth), it seem to me that elevating one's own conscience above certain truth is, um, unwise. Best regards, -- Will \ Society cannot exist unless a controlling power bralick@cs.psu.edu \ upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, \ and the less of it there is within, the more with disclaimer; use disclaimer; \ there must be without. -- Edmund Burke