Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bralick@orofarne.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: One of the best kept secrets in the Catholic Church Message-ID: Date: 22 Oct 90 06:33:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Self Similar Lines: 81 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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