Yes (with the change I made, because conscience is a decision, not a feeling). It is shocking, but yes.

For a sin to be mortal:
1) It must be grave matter. Abortion is grave matter.
2) The person must know it is wrong or be without excuse for knowing that it is wrong.
3) The person must freely choose to do it.

Part (3) has not really come up in our discussion, though it could. The key parts are (1) and (2).

The quotations you provide from VS and EV are saying that some things, including abortion (and contraception, which is where this whole mess about conscience really took a life of its own), always constitute grave matter. If this condition is met, then the act under consideration is objectively wrong.

Part (2) is where our disagreement lies. If the woman made that choice because she had been told a zillion times by the prevailing culture that her baby is not a human person, then perhaps she does not know, or know well enough, that what she is doing is murder and thus gravely wrong.

Biden, Pelosi, et al. drive me nuts too. But conscience itself is not the problem. It is the erroneous ideas associated with conscience (described in VS 60-62) that are the problem.

I assure you that none of this is novel to me. Might I suggest that you consult some older works on moral theology? They will tell you what I am telling you, and perhaps do a better job of explaining.

I wish Peregrinator had not picked lying for his example. Although the majority of moral theologians throughout the ages have held that lying is intrinsically wrong (and I agree), it's controversial enough that it distracts from the point at issue.

OK, Jephthe is considered a just man (Hebrews 11:32) even though he sacrificed his own daughter. Was that not an intrinsically evil act?

@ Obi-Wan Kenobi

Thank you for the explanation. I agree that “lying” is off topic.

What you have explained is the process for discerning mortal sin and that is not my point, which is CCC1800 and 1790 (essentially the same). I will try to be short.

I am convinced by the Popes that these two articles are a grievous error because they omit and deny that conscience “must” never be followed when in favor of abortion. That would contradict many Papal statements already posted. No moral theologian can justify CCC1800 as it stands and it is therefore anti-Catholic.

Second, there is not substantiation of them, no citations, no documentation, no references, no footnotes whatsoever.

Third they contain the words “[all] humans” and “must” which are dogmatic, absolutist statements nowhere found in Catholic dogma that binds all persons in the world and who will ever live on the world. This puts CCC1800 and 1790 on the level of an Ex-Cathedra statement which is absurd since the CCC is not infallible.

Fourth, CCC 1790 is based on the nonsense assertation that if you believe in conscience that evil is good then you must obey that evil, or else, if you obeyed the good then you would be doing evil and condemn yourself!!!!!! If a pregnant mother’s conscience believes that abortion is a good but she went against her conscience and did not have an abortion then she has condemned herself to Hell! That is ungodly.

Thank you.

The mortal sin example is intended to show what I mean by "objectively wrong." It also shows that something can be seriously wrong and yet not imputable, or at least not fully so, to the person who does it.

You and I agree that abortion is intrinsically evil, so there's no point in posting more quotations to that effect.

One of the points at issue is whether "intrinsically evil" means that a person who does it is always culpable. I know you posted something that you think shows that, but it doesn't, as I already explained.

If you were right about that, then you would be right about other statements not having standing, but as it is, the Ordinary Magisterium does apply. (We'd also have a serious problem to be resolved because the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium ought not to be in conflict with each other.)

There is an adage in moral theology: Abusus non tollit usum. The fact that many abuse conscience doesn't take away its rightful place.

Finally, the position you are arguing for is, if I understand it correctly, that you should do things that you believe are wrong. That's not a position I should care to defend.

I will try to condense my main points that I would like your opinion on…

1. CCC1800 and 1790 are not part of the Ordinary Magisterium. They are, as they stand, unsupported by any Papal document. The Catholic truth is that conscience must NOT be followed to permit abortion.

2. CCC1790 is based on the nonsense assertation if a pregnant mother’s conscience believes that abortion is a good but she went against her conscience and did not have an abortion then she has condemned herself to Hell which is absurd.

[/quote]OK, Jephthe is considered a just man (Hebrews 11:32) even though he sacrificed his own daughter. Was that not an intrinsically evil act?[/quote]

What do you you think about CCC1800 actually permitting murder/abortion?

It doesn't "permit" it

Well however you want to phrase it-- "CCC1800 says she "must" abort if she believes in conscience that it is good. That is a "Catholic" absolutist statement which "demands" that she abort.

Quick question: Do you object to absolutist statements in general, or is it just that you think this one is wrong? I can't tell for sure.

Papal documents constitute part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is what is commonly taught and believed.

VERITATIS SPLENDOR...

But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. 67

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. 96

Council of Trent: "But no one, however much justified, ought to consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments 102

YOU...

“If a person feels believes with a certain conscience that they must murder another person, then they must murder that person.”

Father, it seems that you agree with this quote above because it follows CCC1800, is that right?

Yes (with the change I made, because conscience is a decision, not a feeling). It is shocking, but yes.

ME... You are egregiously wrong.

62. Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, "not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin". In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience.

Certainly, in order to have a "good conscience" (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be "confirmed by the Holy Spirit" (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be "clear" (2 Tim 1:3); it must not "practise cunning and tamper with God's word", but "openly state the truth" (cf. 2 Cor 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians: "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

Paul's admonition urges us to be watchful, warning us that in the judgments of our conscience the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance, an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is unable to overcome by himself.

The Council reminds us that in cases where such invincible ignorance is not culpable, conscience does not lose its dignity, because even when it directs us to act in a way not in conformity with the objective moral order, it continues to speak in the name of that truth about the good which the subject is called to seek sincerely.

63. In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a "subjective" error about moral good with the "objective" truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience. It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: "Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults" (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, "when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin". Jesus alludes to the danger of the conscience being deformed when he warns: "The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mt 6:22-23).

64. The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the "heart" converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to "prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God's law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of "connaturality" between man and the true good. Such a connaturality is rooted in and develops through the virtuous attitudes of the individual himself: prudence and the other cardinal virtues, and even before these the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. This is the meaning of Jesus' saying: "He who does what is true comes to the light" (Jn 3:21).

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself". It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom "from" the truth but always and only freedom "in" the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.

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

Please ponder the passage I italicized. It says exactly what I have been saying.

I'm not sure I understand why you think "there are no exceptions for murder" and "those who believe in conscience that they must commit murder, must commit murder or they sin" are opposed to one another.

"There are no legitimate exceptions to negative precepts" means that anyone who thinks there is an exception is always wrong. It doesn't address the responsibility for the moral judgment.

Let me point out also that you are advocating that a person should act in a way that he believes to be wrong. As St. JP II points out in VS, this erodes the effectiveness of conscience because a person becomes used to ignoring his moral judgment.

If you want to hang Biden, Pelosi, et al. out to dry, go for it. But this is the passage from VS that you want:

Note also, in the passage I quoted in the previous post, that there are culpable errors of judgment.

to paraphrase "there is no exception for murder" is to say no one is ever allowed to commit murder for any reason whatsoever.

to paraphrase "those who believe in conscience that they must commit murder, must commit murder or they sin" is to allow murder if she believes it is a good.

they are the difference between life and death, between mortal sin that cries out to God for vengeance, or obeying Gods Commandments.

Obi-Wan Kenobi said…"we must always act in accord with our best understanding of right and wrong"

Your statements are refuted by Evangelium Vitae. Conscience can never be a legitimate cause for abortion and every abortion will be severely judged by God...

no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being" EV 53.

God will severely judge every violation of the commandment "You shall not kill", the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society. EV 53

Bonus edition hot off the press…CCC1790 says that if a pregnant mother’s conscience believes that abortion is a good but she went against her conscience and did not have an abortion then she has condemned herself to Hell!!!!!! That is ungodly.

Can you at least be open to the possibility that you are misunderstanding EV and VS? If not, there’s little point to continuing the conversation. And so I’d leave you with one simple thought: How likely is that, after all these years, you are the only one to note the apparent inconsistency?

“If a person feels believes with a certain conscience that they must murder another person, then they must murder that person.”

Me: Father, it seems that you agree with this quote above because it follows CCC1800, is that right?

You: Yes (with the change I made, because conscience is a decision, not a feeling). It is shocking, but yes.

I will leave you with this…

YOU A CATHOLC PRIEST and admit that YOU PERSONALLY are willing to be a murderer if your conscience believes it.

YOU A CATHOLIC PRIEST have taught, do teach and will continue to teach "murder by conscience" to many other people thus you are in grave danger of THE GUILT OF SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD directly or indirectly, or it may have already happened.

Clearly, the answer to my question is, "No." The only advice I can give is that you write to Fr. Pavone or to Dr. Kreeft or to Dr. Beckwith (pro-life stalwarts all) and ask if they think you're right. They won't. But you will argue with them too because, from start to finish, you have made no effort to understand what is being presented to you.

Again, I thank you for your pro-life work, but I can see absolutely no value in continuing a conversation with someone who is here only to lecture and berate. I shan't be opening this thread again.