As this Pontificate has proceeded, PopeWatch has found much comfort in the writings of Cardinal Newman. As the Pope seeks to place the Church behind various leftist crusades, this passage from the letter of Newman to the Duke of Norfolk on December 27, 1874 seems almost to have a prophetic quality to it:
Popes have great power, but they do not have the power to require Catholics to forsake either their consciences or their brains.
“…whether he was right or wrong in his opinion, and, if wrong, although he had not taken proper pains to get at the truth of the matter.”
One recalls the well-know episode at the time of Napoléon’s marriage to Marie-Louise, Archduchess of Austria. Cardinal della Somaglia told M. Emery, Supérieur of St. Sulpice and a notable moral theologian that he could not attend without wounding his conscience. M. Emery told him that, in that case, he should on no account do so, for any consideration whatsoever.
It transpired that M. Emery had been consulted by a number of the other 18 cardinals, then in Paris, and he had told them he thought they could attend the ceremony with a clear conscience.
In response to a letter from Cardinal Fesch, the Emperor’s uncle, M. Emery explained this apparent inconsistency. He personally saw no harm in attending, but he had given his advice to Cardinal della Somaglia on the basis that one should never act against one’s own conscience, even if it were erroneous [qu’on ne devait jamais, agir contre sa conscience, même erronée].
In the event Cardinal della Somaglia kept to his view, contrary to M. Emery, and did not attend the marriage ceremony.
Agree, of course. But it must be a well formed Catholic conscience if we are to transgress an order from a priest, Bishop or Pope. Most of the transgressing that goes on now-a-days is from a morally deformed conscience, e.g., use of contraception. Unfortunately, many in the clergy have ill formed consciences themselves as we see from experience, especially since Vatican II. Folks who follow an ill formed conscience are committing a sin as doctrine supersedes conscience.
My first reaction upon a quick reading: Don’t let Nancy Pelosi et. al. know about this.
.
Seeing how the righly formed is so often elided from the primacy of conscience these days.
“Ernst Schreiber wrote, “seeing how the righly formed is so often elided from the primacy of conscience these days.”
But that in no way detracts from the duty, on which M Emery insisted, “that one should never act against one’s own conscience, even if it were erroneous.”
As Bl John Henry Newman explains it, “Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error, which he might have escaped, had he been more in earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but still he must act according to that error, while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be truth.”
Wagon-loads of authorities could be produced in support of this proposition; many theologians hold it to be de fide, citing the Fourth Lateran Council, “‘Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam” [He who acts against his conscience loses his soul]
How many know there is a “conscience” or can desribe it? Nowadays the trigger for action is “I feel good about it!” and it gets done. Genteel discussions about “informed” conscience is fine, but who is teaching the faithful? Pondering on this only throws in sharper relief how much we depend on Christ’s mercy, and how His heart must bleed for us.
Am correcting my e-mail address: previous “s-fernan@yahoo.com is an error