“1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

The teaching on conscience in the CCC extends from article 1776 to 1802, but 1800 sticks out like a sore thumb.

1. Stated as a summary “in brief” it is nonetheless an absolutists statement, a one-line dogma in fact.

2. Taken at face value it would lead to undesirable consequences.

3.Most importantly this article is not supported or justified by any Catholic Church document. Theologians and moralists may speculate on this article but it is nowhere found in any Pope, Council or Encyclical of the Catholic Church so it cannot be official teaching.

4. It omits and denies the Catholic Church teaching that conscience can never be followed regarding “intrinsic evil”.

Why is it there?

1800 is a restatement of something taught in earlier paragraphs. As you say, it's part of a summation. It makes sense only in context, and not construed as a "one line dogma." The earlier paragraphs spell out what you're looking for, including the possibility of culpability even in following one's conscience. And of course, even earlier passages explained the formation of conscience.

I'm not suggesting it is intentional, but you are guilty of a serious cherry picking of a passage. Much like the Bible, the Catechism is not a collection of random, disconnected thoughts. That passage is part of a much wider discussion and needs to be understood as part of a whole.

The statement is correct and in full accord with Catholic teaching.

What it is saying is that we must always act in accord with our best understanding of right and wrong (that "best understanding" is the definition of conscience). If your understanding is in error, you may be responsible for that error, but you still have to act in accord with your best understanding.

With respect to your points:

1) It is an absolute statement. Note that the original audience of the CCC is theologians; others are welcome and encouraged to read it, but they must keep in mind that technical language is sometimes used.

2) If the "undesirable consequences" you speak of are claims that people can do things in spite of Church teaching, then yes, that is a consequence. See what I said above about error. The primacy of conscience doesn't get people off the hook, though. Someone who knowingly disregards the teaching of the Church will have to stand before Jesus on the Day of Judgment and explain why they thought they knew better than the Church.

3) The things you refer to are part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, which is usually invoked only when there is serious confusion about what the Church teaches on a given topic. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued that we should do what we think is wrong nor that we should fail to do that which we understand we are obliged to do, nor that we may not freely choose among options that we do not think are wrong. There is thus no confusion on this topic and the Church has never needed to address it formally.

4) Conscience must be followed, period, end of story. What you present here as Church teaching is not Church teaching. See my comments on #2.

Here's St. Thomas on the subject: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5

As I said, theologians may speculate all they want (as can you and I) but it is not Catholic Church teaching unless a Pope, Council or Encyclical says it is. Aquinas is the guy that said early gestation unborn babies are vegetables and animals.

@Obi-Wan Kenobi

1. CCC 1800 is not technical language. The CCC is meant to be read by millions and millions of ordinary Catholics. Nothing in the CCC says “keep in mind technical language”.

2. Most Nazis were firmly convinced in conscience to murder Jews. So they just followed CCC 1800?

3. Contrary to your assertion conscience is addressed by Popes many times. CCC is not part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is not infallible and it is possible to contain errors. CCC 1800 is never found in any Catholic Pope, Council or Encyclical. It is unsupported and unsubstantiated by any Church document whatsoever. It has no authority behind it, it is a wrongly asserted and not in line with Catholic teaching.

4. Conscience can never be followed regarding intrinsic evil (Thou Shall Not Kill) end of story, period…
"The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all." VERITATIS SPLENDOR #52

Prove me wrong with a Pope or Encyclical if you can.

No they weren't - they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

The fact that they went to such lengths to conceal what they were doing while they did it, and to such lengths to cover it up at the end of the war proves that.

Here's an exercise. See if you can figure out why the same Pope who wrote the above would have promulgated the CCC. See if you can figure out why JPII didn't see a conflict.

Strongly recommended: Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, particularly the chapter on the Wannsee Conference. Makes pretty clear how the "conscience" functioned at least in Eichmann's case, which I think is pretty obviously roughly generalizable.

Cautiously recommended: HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS/Goldhagen. A controversial study of how it happened, the debate on which (the historical event and the particular book) echo on today. Also, ORDINARY MEN/Browning, which both supports and differs from Goldhagen in various ways. It's a contentious historical topic. Requires reading in all directions to try to get a firm foundation. History is often like that.

Arendt, of course, is not a historian and nor am I, but the account of Eichmann at Wannsee depends crucially on Eichmann's own words about it being a "Pontius Pilate moment" for him. It's true that my claim that Eichmann's case is roughly generalizable would perhaps call for some additional sources if one wanted to put the effort in. But in the context of a 'quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur' situation like Chrisg's #2 above, I think that's expecting a bit much.

And you know that I'm not gonna get into Chrisg's thesis, pro or con. Not my bailiwick. But I got a number of historical works (fewer than 75, I'd say) that do look at the Final Solution from historical perspectives, both near term and otherwise. And I always support the idea of reading stuff.

Not many in my line of work would disagree with you on that.

nm

May our tribe increase.

@gherkin

You are right that CCC 1800 is a huge mistake and nobody caught it. JP2 did not write the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I am sure he did not proof read it either. I can only speculate that somebody thought that CCC1800 would be a good summary of Church teaching which it obviously is a big mistake and the Pope trusted his writers. Why JP2 did not catch the violation of his Encyclical, I would posit that he was too busy or sick to proof read and he deferred to his crew of writers.

Pope JP2 was adamant that conscience cannot be obeyed in regard to intrinsic evils…

"The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all." VERITATIS SPLENDOR #52

"Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. VERITATIS SPLENDOR 60 [conscience cannot be made the complete and total arbiter of a person to decide what is good and what is evil.]

But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids. VERITATIS SPLENDOR 67 [no exception at all “whatsoever” regarding intrinsic evil].

through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 1 Timothy 4:2 [people with a “seared” conscience obviously should not obey a seared conscience, but CCC1800 says they should!]

Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. Ev 57[no conscience can be followed for anyone to abort].

“The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others” EV #71 [direct and total rejection of any claims of respect of conscience of others who wrongly regard abortion].

This is the proper explanation of binding and obeying conscience…

It is right and just, always and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which is his due and to honour one's parents as they deserve. Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding; they are "unchanging". VERITATIS SPLENDOR 52.

This what CCC1800 should really say…
“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life”. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #3. [obeying conscience is conditional upon coming to God which is denied by CCC1800]

Oh, OK, you're just a troll. I thought at first you were maybe sincerely confused.

tx