It’s not quite true that “a Catholic… considering doing something that the Church teaches to be wrong…can be certain that he is not listening to his conscience.” One’s conscience is not infallible. It’s “a judgment of reason [CCC 1778],” a subjective interpretation of God’s voice, not God’s voice itself.

If I had been a Catholic in the late middle ages and had refused an order to burn a heretic? Or if I had refused to believe that a distrubed person who committed suicide was going to Hell?

One thing that helps, is that in either of those actions, I’m not likely to experience some temporal gain in power, riches or pleasure by what I believe. The most suspect conscience dispute would be those where you gain some sort of convenience or hedonistic pleasure. Or so it would seem to me.

I do, however, consider that I can suspect Church teachings on certain things based on my conscience but still endeavor to be obedient to those teaching. So long as I’m the only one being “hurt” it seems saft to me.

As a Catholic convert, I find it heartbreaking that the Church contains the fullness of truth, but does such a poor job of teaching the truth (especially the “big T’s”) to the laity in a way that can be understood by all. With few exceptions, the most important teachings are either conveyed by catechists who insert personal interpretation into it, or it is presented in a way that is like presenting a scholarly paper to a class of kindergartners. A thorough understanding of what is—and is not—authentic conscience is the foundation to everything else. Our bishops need to realize this and require that it be taught not just in catechism and RCIA classes, but from the pulpit, vigorously and often. It’s the only way to counter the Protestant and secular notions of conscience.

Cogent & understandable explanation of the Cultivation of Catholic Consciences. Thank you for this article but, as if you didn’t know, I kinda doubt it’ll be accepted with open & grateful hearts by most catholics.

Do we really think that we can get people to come back to the church telling them that they can not take part in the Eucharist? Seems a bit backwards.  We are taught that the eucharist is life sustaining, yet as ‘punishment’ the ‘church’ withholds it from the people who need it the most.

Sounds like Father Breen subscribes to the same relativism that is plaguing our political correct country.  Without princple, on what basis do we proceed?  We are, indeed, responsible for ensuring that we have an informed conscience.  Not only are we losing our way spiritually but also we are, for the same reason, losing our country.  Even our Founding Fathers counseled that we need a religious people if our republican form of government is to survive.  There is life, peace and prosperity in the way of the Lord.  There is strife, pain and chaos if we choose to replace God with Man and the State.  Are we not replacing God, who gave us the Church to guide us, if we decide to choose for ourself with no regard for Church Teaching?  Jesus did not say “here are the 10 commandments, pick any three”.

Tom K. don’t entirely understand your point but take note: Catechism 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”  The Catechism does not speak of the conscience as as a “subjective interpretation of God’s voice.” It speaks of poorly formed consciences and ignorant consciences. Those who are truly listening to a well-formed conscience will be listening to God. A person listening to a badly formed conscience or an ignorant conscience would not be listening to God.

I’m a lapsed Catholic, now a happy Episcopalian, and I couldn’t agree more—don’t become us—stay the way you are and stay where you are.  Leave us alone. 

You can teach what you want to teach, but the day I left was when a notorious little Catholic ex-slut told me my husband of almost thirty years didn’t love me and was using me as a blow-up doll (her exact words) because I had been prescribed the pill at the age of 47 for a specific medical condition.

So keep your Church, keep your bizzaro teaching on non-NFP birth control where women are better off bleeding to death than using something that is also used as birth control in order to temporarily control the bleeding while tests are being run and surgical options are studied.

You sure showed me.

I’m happily “lapsed” and still happily married to my husband and father of my five children. 

I just don’t buy into the mindless, robotic, dumber-than-dirt groupthink anymore.

One forms their conscience over time, but how can one be sure that what has been instilled is correct?  That’s why we must always listen to the laws put forth by the Pope, and hopefully our priests agree with him.  How sad when a priest goes awry with his message.  How does he correct the false teachings he has put forth over the years.  Is his soul in jeopardy because of these false teachings?  Does he answer to God for each and every sin committed by those who listened to him, but did not know the truth?

Note to self: Strawman arguments do not serve the greater purpose of actually highlighting the complications in this issue. (Also, the lack of engagement in Catholic circles with psychology is a real problem.) I don’t want to say much at this point, but pulling the most emotionally draining ethical situations and infusing remarks from people which do not deal with the subjectivity or difficulty of persons in that situation is not pastoral and does not serve to actually promote greater fidelity.

Also, the ecclesiology in this article is misunderstood at best and downright manipulative at worst because it focuses so much on the teaching of the papacy. Now of course structure is important, but there are different levels of teaching authority and most of the issues which the author highlights are not direct issues of revelation and they are not teachings which cause a dependency in revelation. So all of the issues with which this article confronts are rank 3 in the juridical sphere of authority of authoritative teachings. (though the popes have tried to make women’s ordination a rank 2 in this model, with varying degrees of acceptance and success.) Rank 1 teachings would be the Nicene Creed, things directly associated with revelation and rank 2 would be ones concerned with anything which is needed to engage revelation. (Keep in mind I’m summing up information from Richard Gaillardetz and his ecclesiology.)

So really this article demonstrates a poor ecclesiology and does not engage the psychology of dealing with issues in the Church today. Until articles about conscience truly engage this struggle, and stop building a mentality of “if you’re not following the Church you must not have a well formed conscience.” then the Church will never grow and it will not imitate Christ who took people where they were at and built them up with encouragement not judgment.

I fully agree with Dr. Smith that nobody can depend upon his/her conscience without the conscience being formed by the Church. However, there are, I believe, two errors of fact in Dr. Smith’s article. First, the Church has not definitively stated that the diaconate is closed to women. The second error is that validity of sacraments is not dependent upon the local bishop being in communion with the pope. If that were the case then the sacraments of the eastern Churches as well as the Polish National Church would be at the very least in doubt.

One might ask the question, why is Father Breen still a Catholic priest, if he has so many difficulties with the teachings of the Church?  While I am at it, I forwarded an e-mail to the Bishop of Nashville voicing the same questions and I am still waiting for a response from the esteemed member of the Church hierarchy.
Sincerely yours in Christ;
Lawrence Beaton

I enjoyed this article for its points. I will not get into a dissertation of the nature of the conscience here, but obedience is another situation. Obedience requires discipline, and that would be lacking in many who would have problems in the first place. The conscience is usually that which allows us to know the whole ideals of what is right and what is wrong, based on experiences (life teachings).

The article made me think and consider one of the reasons I ask myself the question “Why would someone, who knows they are doing wrong, question themselves that it is wrong?” As humans we tend to allow our limited understandings, bias, and often erroneous reasoning to dictate what is “truth” to us. This allows us to justify that which we know is wrong. But in truth, the individual who practices such philosophies are on the wide road of destruction. One often hears of the criminal with “no conscience” which I have never believed in myself, but rather is is is simply just a severe lack of understanding of what is “right”. The ideal of right is defined by the positive outcome that it produces. 

The truth is often the most difficult road to take and there are few who will really venture to carry the cross. In the end, doing the right thing from the start has the best outcomes. Too many people have lost the very important quality that is necessary for being a faithful Catholic—personal, spiritual and moral discipline.

It is unfortunate that we have individuals like Fr. Breen, who are possibly responsible for misleading countless numbers of souls with their positions, opinions and shaded oppositions to authentic Church teachings. The Church needs no candy shop or sales pitches to give that which cannot be found anywhere else. Her teachings are watertight and sound, and anyone who follows them follow Christ. There is no room for gray areas or fence-sitters where truth is concerned, or else there is no truth in the first place.

Those (priests) who insist on making their own truth should find another profession and the faithful should, if they are in knowledge of an error, find guidance in the Church Herself. Leaving the Church is not an option—ever.

The Church teaches in a way that, if one really looked at it in a spirit of truth, can only be the right thing to do. I could say, without any question on my part, that the teachings of the Church are so correct, that I would question the sanity of anyone who would question them. One can see where some questions could really get philosophical, but the Church deals in absolutes, not philosophies. Faithful Catholics have a responsibility to correct and guide those who are lead astray or deceived.

When we encounter such incidents as is in the actions of the said priest in the article, we see a direct result of modernism and liberalism that was not checked fast enough when it started by the Church. The errant priests should be defrocked and have it done with. We are constantly cleaning the Church, but a good housecleaning also requires that one dust under the furniture.

I was interested in Janet Smith’s example of conscience of the husband whose wife was unable to consummate the marriage because of her medical incapacity and the justification he assumed that because of this situation he would be committing no wrong in conscience by instigating a sexual relationship with his unmarried secretary.  My interest hails from the fact that I am in this very situation, which amounts to involuntary celibacy, which I have, through the strength of my faith (I was received into the Catholic Church only three years ago) maintained without demur for six years.  While I agree entirely with Janet’s observation that, in her example, the husband having sexual intercourse with anyone but his wife, would be committing adultery and clearly should avoid doing this, a clinical problem arises however over the effect on any married man enduring long-term sexual abstinence.  This is not a matter that can be lightly dismissed, for it is easy to discuss it theoretically while conveniently overlooking the practical ramifications of this, which have to be seriously addressed. While I reject adultery, there is, I suggest, an obvious ambiguity here, I have yet to hear a convincing response to it.

@Tom: The word “conscience” can mean one of two (interrelated) things: synderesis, or our *infallible* knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of practical reason (do good, avoid evil, etc.) against which any sin whatsoever is a violation, and conscientia, or our *fallible* concrete application and interpretation of the principles known through synderesis.  So, a Catholic violating the declarations of the Magisterium does not act in accord with his synderesis, though he may act in accord with his conscientia.  (See Aquinas, Summa Theo. I:79:12-13.)
Our current pope has developed a slightly different, more Platonic version of this same argument in his essay “Conscience and Truth,” published by the fine people at Ignatius Press.

It is the strict adherence to the Church teachings that draws most new members to the Catholic Church.  Why else would there be the rise in attendance, at least in our parish, and the return to the Pre-Vatican II latin Mass in many more? 
Don’t change what isn’t broken in order to become just another “church of the what’s happening now”.  Last I heard the big mega churches are starting to flounder as people desire the smaller church atmosphere.

“Let me offer a proposal for winning back lapsed Catholics: something worth coming back to. Priests should evince a tremendous love for Christ and his Church and the papacy. They should do everything they can to help their congregation fall in love with Christ and his Church; they should encourage them to read Scripture and receive the sacraments; they should find a myriad of ways to help them understand and accept Church teaching on difficult issues and inspire them to live lives of radical Christian service.” You are absolutely right, Dr. Smith. Only let’s us laypersons do the same!

@Leanne: Please don’t take that woman’s statements as confirmations of the Church’s views.  Never have I heard a competent, orthodox moral theologian state that using the Pill for non-birth-control purposes is morally illicit.

The Church is infallible; some of her more vocal advocates, unfortunately, do not share this charism.

Simon ...there is no ambiguity regarding the moral position of the Church where the married man is expressing frustration over his position in a marriage where the wife has become sexually incapacitated and is wondering if under his circumstances he might not have a case for adultry. To have sexual relations with someone one is not married to is the classic definition of adultry..period! Does this present difficulty and frustration and sadness and all the rest? Of course! But obedience to the vows he and his wife took before God is required if he is to consider himself a moral man. He will take up his Cross and follow Jesus who said my grace is sufficient and sacrifice his own pleasure for fidelity to his wife and his God! This is a noble calling…and he had best follow it as he declared he would on his wedding day when he vowed to be faithful to his wife in sickness and in health, etc. If he has a well developed conscience..one he has been listening to all his life..his choice will be clear to him. This is what the Church teaches because this is what being a Christian demands. Many of the comments here indicate otherwise..that the Church would do well to take a poll among its members in order to determine right from wrong, illicit from licit or truth from lie! That is not the Catholic Church…and those who would deviate from its Truths
SHOULD leave less they bring condemnation upon themselves. Being Catholic is not choosing what pleases you but rather what pleases God according to His plan which has been given to us through revelation and the magisterium

“You are a Catholic; I have set up the Church to guide you in such decisions; turn to the Church for guidance, and you will be hearing my voice on this matter.”

Well put.

Leo: To follow one’s conscience is to do what one judges to be good. Therefore, if one acts in accord with one’s conscientia, one necessarily acts in accord with one’s synderesis—i.e., in doing what one subjectively judges to be good, one is following the principle of doing good and avoiding evil (though, of course, a poorly formed conscience or an error in judgment may lead to one doing evil).

@K.P.
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” 1Cor11:27. To receive the Eucharist in mortal sin, esp. known mortal sin, is dangerous to the person receiving, and it is right to prevent them until the sin is absolved.

@Leanne
Let me understand…The Church has always taught that you were right to take the meds for the reasons prescribed (and I took the same meds for the same reason, so i know; only their use for birth control is not allowed)—and you left, based on what one ignorant person said, without checking the facts? I grieve for you, and for whoever taught you so poorly. You’re in my prayers.

Thanks for this wonderful article. Very simply and powerfully, stated. The wealth of bizzaro comments from the lapsed is sad, but not entirely surprising.
I would like to add that sometimes because of difficult situations (such as man with incapacitated wife) fidelity to Christ and the Church requires personal heroism. Things were frequently not easy for Christ, his saints now in heaven, and so many of the the present communion of living saints. Trial calls for heroism.

Winnipeg:
“In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”

Let’s slow down this discussion a little bit because from various comments (adele, Mia Archer, and Alcie especially, though others as well), I feel like you’re thinking we are saying things which we’re actually not.

adele in particular your response to Simon shows a lack of pastoral concern because he’s not saying that committing adultery is right, but there is a pastoral need to deal with the loneliness and isolation of not being able to see the self of the other in her revealing as fully because of incapacitation. That’s a lot for any person to take for various philosophical reasons (I would turn you to Levinas’ concept of the fear of non-response in God, Death, and Time for more information.)

This is a note to be taken with everyone, those of us arguing against this article are not saying in particular that any of the moral stances we necessarily disagree with. We’re disagreeing with how the author, Janet Smith, is interpreting conscience to the point where conscience = obedience. And yes, to be fair she doesn’t explicitly state this, but the flow of the article and the situations she uses suggest that if you don’t think with the line of the American version of the Magisterial Church then you don’t have a properly formed conscience.  Psychologically speaking this isn’t possible because every self has different sensitivities which reflect how the self sees the world, and those will come out, regardless of how one tries to assimilate people to have similar or the same sensitivity through various ritual and doctrinal means.

Of course, this brings out the question of how to live one’s faith. Because obedience is important, and a certain level of agreement is required for membership in the Catholic faith. However, we have to think about whether certain truths need to be there in order for the revelation of God’s love to be shown. And there can be legitimate different interpretations for some of these topics. This does not mean we’re trying to cause heresy or schism in the Church, by discussing these topics we’re humbly asking questions and seeing if things could be done better to reveal the love of God more fully to others. Being judgmental of others is one way to negate that vision. Preserving the faith is important, but without asking critical questions, we’ll never grow. When things stay the same, faith stagnates, and to be honest, most of our saints we’re on the borderlines of orthodoxy until way after their deaths. (some saints are still on the borderline in some ways.)

But let’s engage what people are really saying on this board, too often we put our prejudices and fears into our talk and don’t engage the concerns and argument at hand, myself included. Because this is an important issue which will only grow over time, especially in line of recent events.

Bill:

You have to stop watching the hoo-ha ahistorical “History Channel.”  Only in the Papal States did the Church have authority to execute heretics.  In the medieval state the King executed heretics as criminals, because the usual “dominion is founded on grace” theory was treason against the State.  If the King did not belong to your sect, you paid him no taxes, performed no military service, and tried to de-throne him: Treason. 

If you, as a citizen, disagreed with your King, your conscience didn’t matter.  Joan of Arc was a French citizen executed for treason againgst the King of England; her conscience informed her that the King of France rightfully ruled disputed France.

Leanne: 

Your “logic” is extremely dubious, but your lack of charity (“notorious Catholic ex-slut”) roars.  Why on earth did you listen to someone 1) whom you hated violentrly? 2) was not a theological authority?

Medical use of a contraceptive for an elderly woman of 47, long past conception and enduring an unusually difficult menopause, is usually accepted.  Talk to a doctor and a priest, not someone you hate who is no authority.

When man lost the beatific vision of God, and his nature was reduced down, to only his five senses, from that point on man had the angelic nature as the go between, between God and man.  As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, in his Summa Theologica, the angelic order is divided into two states.  One submissive to the Supernatural Order, the other subservient to the powers of Satan.  Both have access to the mind of man.  God has planted within the heart of man, the first principal of the moral code, “do good, avoid evil.”  The second principal declares, (to protect against negative logic), that one cannot do evil, to bring about good.  The apostles were given the deposit of faith, which has to legits, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.  Divine Revelation comes to us, (the Catholic Church), through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, guided by the Magisterium, empowered by the Holy Spirit, where you find one you will find the other two.  What I have found as a Catholic convert is that not only does the Church have an unbroken succession of Popes, but that she also has an unbroken succession of absolute truth, within her.  The absolute truth of Christianity subsists in the Catholic Church alone, many are the paths that lead away from her.  “And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Adele and Alcie ... While I don’t doubt the sincerity of your words or your theological rationale, to be told after seven years of enforced celibacy that one must just endure the situation and be a hero is, with the greatest of respect, not much of an answer.  As I said in my initial post, such views are fine when being discussed theoretically but they pay little heed to the practicalities of the human difficulties the sufferer has to confront, as I do.  I feel no call to be hero when the circumstances that have brought this about are not of my making, and when they are having increasingly corrosive psychological effects.

Very few lapsed Catholics are shaken by matters of conscience. 

More often they have family Little League, soccer, and football on Sunday.  They sleep-in, and wake to shop at the mall.  They whine about the collection-basket, and say, “everything is about MONEY” (and it IS: about the school, roof, heating/air-conditioning, missions, staff salaries/benefits, etc., just like at home!).  They frequently have messed-up lives with marriage, divorce, and “re-marriage.” 

Their “Catholic” life was lived for 25 minutes on Sunday, and never seeped into daily life, prayer, education, fair business practice, etc.

Offering Communion to those who see it as a piece of bread only deepens their confusion; they see it as a friendly greeting, not the Body of Christ.

Look at those who move to rigid Protestant groups, where life is regulated 24/7 by a stern collection of human-inspired rules.  Look at those Spanish-speakers who refuse to attend Mass either in English or with non-hispanics, and retreat to all-hispanic store-front Protestant iglesias.  They don’t want teddy-bears at the altar and fuzzy-wuzzy cosiness.  They want something challenging, which forces them to think regularly about matters of conscience.  They want a rule-book to help them. 

The only effective re-evangelization is a Church which means something, and stands by its divinely-inspired joy, love of God, and prudent discipline.  Bring out the Bibles, preach in the streets, and proclaim the Good News.

Facts help clarify.

The Church never burnt a heretic. The Church simply decided whether someone held and preached heretical beliefs. If unrepentant the person was given to the secular arm. [NB: As well, it is always necessary to distinguish between the Church and the clergy].

To the happy Episcopalian, you may want to reread you message. Why ever would you believe “the slut” who made the remark about your husband?

From the last sentence - “I just don’t buy into the mindless, robotic, dumber-than-dirt group-think anymore” - you don’t sound particularly happy.

I believe in listening for God’s voice—and that it comes to us in many ways, not exclusively through the Church.  That’s the primary way of course, but not the only way. This is a very hard matter to resolve, I have spent my whole life trying to deal with it.  On the deeply personal matter of birth control, I think God’s voice must come primarily through couple prayer and from the mouth of your spouse.  We made that decision 35-plus years ago, and have 4 beautiful children.  No regrets.  And don’t ask what the decision was.  It was informed, and it was right for us.

Afitz, Please do the author the courtesy of being her own spokeswoman. She is not in need of your (re)interpretation of what she’s written.
  Speaking for myself: Truth=Jesus because that’s what he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.” This means that Truth is not only a person but, just as with any person, an objective FACT. Therefore, personal interpretation does not equal Truth. No matter how convenient that interpretation may be. There are circumstances which influence how well an individual understands the Truth. Just like a 2nd grader won’t understand the truth of geometry theorems as well as a 10th grader. THAT’s why we (read: Catholics) need a well-formed conscience. THAT’s why Jesus left the Church (aka: His Body) on earth & said “Whatever you bind is bound..” We don’t bend the Truth to fit our lifestyle, we learn from the Truth & mold our lives to his.

Benedict XVI has said several times that when we attempt to paint the truth in accord with what we think, we just end up eventually with a self-portrait. Or, to quote Saint Maximilian Kolbe, whose feastday was yesterday: “If all the people in the world said I wasn’t writing this to you, all the people in the world would be wrong because truth is immutable.”

To Afitz211 and others who think that I was not showing enough “pastoral
concern” for Simon and others in his situation ...which shows more
concern for what is really at stake here…some “touchie-feelie” kind of
psychobable or telling it like it is…all trials can be overcome with God’s grace which He tells us is sufficient. Sticking to the point of
Dr Smith’s article, whether you agree or diagree with her, is the fact that we have an inner voice that “speaks” to us and thus we form our
conscience. HOwever that “inner voice” needs to be informed so that we
do not just lead with our feelings, our prejudices, our opinions. How
do we fine tune that inner voice which we call our conscience? Through the teachings of Christ which we learn about through the Scriptures, the traditions and the Magisterium of the Church ( there is no such thing as the American Magisterium I might add ) and that is how we arrrive at having a Catholic conscience. It is silly to say that somehow the tenents of a man made body of knowledge such as psychology supercedes this and that we need to listen to psychology to inform our conscience. Yes, come to think of this, the USCCB fell for that once too! Pray, Simon, pray! and even fast if necessary but stick to what your faith tells you!

Oh I do pray Adele, I do!  And in this I would be the first to say that I am much blessed: I am a member of the lay community of a monastery here in the UK.  All my best friends are monks from whom I derive much inspiration and guidance.  However, while the power of prayer is assuredly immense - indeed this is what has pulled me through seven years of gratuitous marital celibacy, and let’s hope it does so for another seven years - all this take place to an inner awareness of my own fallibility, and a worrying notion that what I may be doing is to attempt to sustain the humanly unsustainable

Leann, what Holy Church teaches and alway has is that to leave Holy Church is damnation!  If you value your you soul it would be better not too comfortable as an Episcopalion.

@Tom: Yes, our application of the first precepts of the natural law as grasped by synderesis is fallible.  And, again, we always think our application of those rules to be the correct one.  But the fact that we think ourselves to be adhering to the principles held through synderesis does not mean at all that we are in truth adhering to those same principles.  Again: synderesis-knowledge of first principles is infallible, and conscientia-application of those principles is fallible.

Simon…And I will pray along with you and your wonderful supportive prayer community of monks that God’s grace will sustain you and your
wife…He has promised to always be with you…and your reward will be
great if you continue in your perservence. The cross you bear now will
become your Crown in Heaven our Father teaches us…and through intercessory prayer and God’s grace you will make it. If nothing else
our church teaches if we are following Christ we will have the cross…and by your cross you will be saved…along with your wife. We do not go to Heaven alone…as bleak as things seem to you know keep your focus on things above and beyond what we only can see dimly here. God bless you!

Over the centuries, the Church has become more about mind control than it has about the true teachings of the Bible ... and there is nothing in the Bible that says we must blindly do what the Pope says ... Rome has, over the centuries, changed the rules as it deems fit, so for someone to stand up and say, this should be looked into, is hardly heresy ...

I think if Jesus were to step foot in the Church today, he would be appalled at the ornamentation, the pageantry, the political hierarchy, and the forcing of people to follow blindly the dictates of old men in Rome ... I go to Mass and look around me at all the gold and the artwork and the ornamentation, and think about all the hungry people all this nonsense would feed ... when Jesus was speaking about the Church, he wasn’t talking about physical structures, and he certainly wasn’t imagining stained glass windows and men in expensive robes.

Hurrah to Fr, Breen for the courage to stand up and point out that the Emperor new clothes do not exist ....

Of course he will be punished ... Choby is a sheep like all the rest of the Bishops ... but at least, I am sure, Fr. Breen’s conscious is clear.

Adele ... thank you for your kind words and encouragement.  They have touched me deeply.

And Simon…one more thing I would like to suggest to help you in your suffering is a little, inexpensive book with a wealth of prayerful advice.
It is called Ten Prayers that God Always Says Yes To: Divine Answers to
Life’s Most Difficult Problems by Anthony DeStephano. It is not one of these “prosperity gospel” type books of self-help nor “name it…you claim it” type of philosophy. It begins with a chapter titled God Show Me You Exist and the one I would really like you to read is chapter 4: God get me through this suffering. God bless you..and I will take you before the Lord, along with the needs of your wife, when I make my weekly hour of Adoration tomorrow.

Elle..the Catholic Church is not teaching from “Sola Scriptura” but also teaches from Tradition as well as from the Magisterium. And this is an article about obedience to all three…rather well written too in my humble opinion. As for the “treasures” you view around you at Mass you might reflect upon where you are…in the house of God! Why would we
build a house that does not reflect his Beauty and Stature to worship Him in…to help us lift our minds on high to Whom we address our liturgy.
To say Jesus would not know his Church if He returned today implies that Jesus is somehow unaware of the world He created. When I sell all my possessions and give that to the poor…perhaps I would be in a better position to criticize others including the Church. My mind has not been brainwashed by the Church…far from it. Everday I find myself opened more to the wonders of the Universe and the mercy and compassion of the
Lord through Holy Mother Church. Please examine in your heart where you
are coming from when you make these accusations…it sounds like a bitter place to me.

Adele ... An order for “Ten Prayers That God Always Says Yes To” will be with the bookshop at my monastery tomorrow - unless of course they already have in in stock!  Again, heartfelt thanks for the help, advice and concern. Much appreciated.

Far from bitter, Adele .. far from it ... but when I see injustices (hoarding wealth in a church that could be used to help the needy), or lack of human compassion, I use the good brain that God gave me.  The God I know doesn’t want all that ornamentation in what is supposedly His house of worship ... in fact, who’s to say that He requires a house of worship at all?  The hierarchy in Rome developed over the centuries was initially a power struggle, and the laws and so-called “interpretations” of the Bible were means of controlling the masses ... what clearly has happened, as any thinking person is aware, is that the infrastructure put into place to facilitate worship became greater than the worship itself, taking on a life of its own ... where there are labels and dogma, there ceases to be purity of heart ... far from bitterness, my heart is full of love and compassion for all ... as is the good Fr. Breen’s ... spend an hour with the man in open dialogue ... he welcomes diverging opinions ... and you will walk away humbled ... and, perhaps, with a heart full of love, and not harsh judgement.

@Elle: You seem to be distressed by the idea of “forcing… people to follow blindly the dictates of old men in Rome” instead of, I suppose, everyone following his or her own reasonable conscience as informed by the Bible.  While I am certain that you have nothing but the best intentions, you must realise that such a belief is really quite elitist: most people (myself included!) cannot be expected to know what to do without some sort of definitive moral authority to guide us.  If we could not “blindly obey the Pope,” how would we conduct ourselves?  Acting according to “our own lights”?  To “what the Bible teaches”?  What reason would men like myself, who are anything but infallible reasoners, have to expect that “our own lights” would reveal anything but confusion and ignorance?  How would we know which “real” Jesus, or Biblical teaching, or interpretation thereof to adhere to as our guide?  Whose justice would we follow, and which rationality?  That the Church presents herself as an infallible authority concerning faith and morals is not an act of tyranny but, as Newman writes, “a mark of divine wisdom and mercy” (Dev. of Christ. Doct., II:vii:4).

Plenty of people the world over know how to conduct themselves without “blindly following the Pope” ... the Bible works for some ...

Elle,

I appreciate your feelings, but you are all wrong in your assessment about what the Church is. To know Catholicism, one must know truth first. If you knew truth, you would be a Catholic. Your ignorance of the Church is apparent in your comments, and rather risky in assuming what Christ would think (of anything). If this seems blunt, it is because it is the truth. Your attitude is only the brunt of why there are problems in teaching the truth. There are so many people out there who tend to believe Dan Brown and Jack Chick, and few who will believe Christ Himself. It is not that your views are new, unique, or even earth-shattering. But instead they are formed by obviously confused beliefs, thoughts and uneducated scriptural conjecture as to what scriptural verses imply and Our Lord is saying. It is for your mindset that the Church exists, and that being understood, there are sometimes bad priests who take advantage of it by using it for their own personal platform, and not as Christ intended them to. These are the “false prophets” He speaks of, so be careful who you are praising here. It is safer to say that Christ is more concerned with bad priests spreading heresy to the ignorant, than how the Church is decorated. I will pray for you.

@Elle (again):
a.) As regards the God Whom you “know doesn’t want all that ornamentation in what is supposedly His house of worship,” I direct you to Exodus 25:3-20.
b.) Saying that it should be evident to “any thinking person” that the Church is obsessed with dogma, rules, and lust for power is simply insulting.  What about St. Auustine, or St. Anselm, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or Bl. Duns Scous, or St. Thomas More, or Ven. Cardinal Newman?  Do these men not qualify as “thinking persons”?
c.) Those illustrious thinkers bring me to my third point: you seem, like many, to think that observant Catholics simply check their brains in at a counter when accepting dogma.  Far from it!  Some of the best thinking in theology done is arrived at precisely from meditation upon, inquiry regarding, and struggles with that teaching, even while, in fact because of, accepting that teaching as true.
d.) You write, finally, that dogma and rules bring an end to purity of heart.  But purity of the heart, as Kierkegaard said, is to will one thing, and in a Church without ultimate authority nobody shall agree upon anything, and consequently each man shall will what he wants alone.  The Magisterium is not an assault upon our individuality but a sign of contradiction in an age where each man would make himself his own legislator.

Bring them back in under the guise that they will be nice.  BUT then we cram our morality down your throat until you no longer disagree with us.

Yep, still not coming back

“Bring them back in under the guise that they will be nice.  BUT then we cram our morality down your throat until you no longer disagree with us.
Yep, still not coming back “———
——I am not sure of the reasoning of this statement or who it is addressing, as that could apply to both protestant and Catholic individuals themselves. It should first be established that sometimes the truth is not always a “nice” feeling or easy to accept. It takes hard work and discipline, aspects that are often forgotten in today’s world. Some people want “easy” salvation, and will go anywhere or listen to anyone, to get it. People naturally tend to embrace that which is easy or that which others are doing. Hell is full of individuals of this mind. And I have yet to see where the Church has to “cram” morality down anyone’s throat—-one either does what is right or not. If one is following the teachings of the Church, then they may rest assured of following the truth. If they follow the dictates of their own hearts or those of modernist priests, then there is going to be trouble. True, that this could seem to be the case with those of a liberal and modernistic mindset, but the whole idea of sacrifice is lost when we attempt to replace it with compromise. We must remember that those who are guilty of ignorance of truth, genuine invincible ignorance, are innocent of any sin, but once the truth is taught to them, and they refuse it, then the sin is committed. No gray areas need be applied here, just truth. I personally, in good conscience, stand by and allow it to happen without saying something and you will find few Catholic faithful who would not, as well. Charity is the key here, and it can be a daunting task, to be certain. Catholic Evangelization is becoming more the norm today, as error seems to take root more. We must correct error at all costs, even our lives, if necessary. It is often the most difficult thing in the world, it would seem today, to be a faithful Catholic. When one sees the situation that Our Lord encountered or those of many Saints, one clearly sees, in real life, what the faithful Catholic today must suffer—and that suffering is done willingly.

Well Andy, we may not see you anytime soon in Church but at least you
found a way to bring this blog back on topic.  The point of the article seems to have been lost to those who wish to use this as a place to vent the usual liberal/left diatribe about the “sins of the Church”. Dr Smith has written an excellent article about how lapsed Catholics are to be brought back into the fold and has exposed one priest(Fr Breen)attempts to do so while veering from the teachings of the Church. It was suggested that by becoming more welcoming and inviting as in giving up our teachings concerning contraception, homosexuality, etc it could be done.Well, I wonder what Jesus would do? After all this is his Church, His Mystical Body! In Scripture we see I think in John6:60 a prophetic
forshadowing of just what Jesus did in just such a situation. John tells
us that there was much grumbling when Jesus was teaching about the Eucharist ..he said in order to have life we must “eat his flesh” and “drink His blood”! Many of his disciples when they heard it said"This is too hard a saying..who can listen to it” and walked away! Walked away!
What did Jesus do? Did he run after them? NO! Did he call out to them saying they misunderstood? NO! For Jesus knew,john goes on to say, there were some who did not believe..right from the beginning he knew who they were and that they would betray him. Who are these today who do not believe and would betray him? Jesus also said that no one could come to him unless it was granted by the Father. It would seem John is telling us no one will return to the Church unless he follows the path of truth and that it is found through obedience and humility. Let us offer prayers to the Father to this end…for all of us who would seek the Truth!

To be a true Catholic ( not a “wannbe by MY standards”) in today’s world is to be called to a radical way of life…of loving and forgiving, of accepting and obeying. No one who truly follows the Pope (or the Church) does so blindly or without both humility and obedience. It takes a great deal of dedication to principle and the truth. It has become the last great acceptable prejudice…and given the way things are going we are heading into a time of great persecution…a time when it will be a crime once more to profess allegience to the Church! It will not be a time for the weak and the spineless! But as in times past it will be glorious for those who persevere. As GK Chesterton said The Church has not be tried and found wanting, it has been tried and found difficult.”..words to that effect. It is a time to stand for truth and not be dissuaded by those who would “tickle the ears” with false teachings as St Paul pointed out.the more things change the more they stay the same…as history continues to repeat itself..even within the Church!

I think that Fr. Breen’s intent was to bring people back to church. I can remember Fr. Black telling my freshman scripture class at Fr. Ryan High School thirty-two years ago that we should not look at other people at mass and think that they are unworthy of our church. Church is not just for the perfect; it is for those of us who need help to become more like Christ. We are not protecting our Catholic Church by making people feel unworthy. Like we tell our children, God doesn’t create junk. Please don’t give up on people who are ordinary and make mistakes because they are not perfect like all of you. Fr. Breen has always been a highly respected priest for those of you who do not know him - even by those important church leaders in Rome. They know that he is one of the best, but he has always chosen to be among the ordinary people, the everyday people who get up and go to work, and who try to do what’s right kind of people. The Church’s traditions are not more important than the people who belong to the church. We are a church; not a fraternity. Fr. Breen did not tell anyone that they should divorce. He simply said that their church would not abandon them. For those of you who claim that birth control is evil, do you not understand that people have tried to control that for years by natural family planning? Both are planning, but yes, one is using a pill created by people using modern science. I am sad that there are so many people who are throwing stones at someone who has made such a difference in the Church and the Nashville Community. Mother Theresa said it well, if you judge people, you have no time to love them. It is not the magnitude of our actions but the amount of love that is put into them that matters. I think that Mother Theresa would be proud of Fr. Breen.

Lisa,
Your points are fine and respected. But, you should be careful not to be justifying heresy and confusing it with progress in the Church. No one here is really throwing stones, only attempting to uphold the truth. Fr. Breen in openly heretical, which confuses people who should not be confused if they call themselves a Catholic. Making a “difference” does not mean going against Church teachings.

Catholics WHO REJECT TEACHINGS(doctrines) of the Church REJECT Jesus.

Jesus said to His disciples (Pope and bishops united to him): “Whoever listens to you listens to me. whoever rejects you rejects me….”(Lk 10:16). So, dissenting Catholics reject Jesus.

Lisa ...you are to be commended for your love and concern for your fellow man….you are rich in compassion for those who have for one reason or another not been able to live the teachings of the faith, even those who made “bad” choices that put themselves and their eternal souls at risk.
This is the compassion we are instructed by Jesus himself to have for the sinner…condenm the sin but love the sinner.  It is misplaced compassion when we attempt to love the sinner by condoning the sin…as Fr Breen (according to this article ) seems to be suggesting when he tells his parishioners that we need to be eliminating some of the non-negotiable
truths of the Church in order to be seeminly more inviting to those who would like to return to the Church! We read in Paul (2 Tim 4:3) For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate to themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wandering into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure the suffering, and do the work of an evangelist, fufill your ministry.”

I did see the short video of Fr. Breen, but more importantly I have known him as the pastor of my church for the past 26 years. He married my husband and me, and he baptized my three children. I know him well. Fr. Breen not only encourages his parishioners to follow the ten commandments by what he says in his homilies, but he does it by the way he lives. He is very frustrated because he knows that there are many wonderful men who want to become priests, but they also want to be allowed to marry. For those of you who don’t know Fr. Breen, he has no interest in getting married. He is quite happy being a celibate priest. His reason for speaking out was an unselfish one. Doesn’t it often take someone who is willing to speak out who has nothing to personally gain to make other people listen? Fr. Breen has been to Rome, and he is highly respected by our church leaders. There is no doubt in my mind that he has spoken in private to all of them way before we heard about this. To a degree I understand the ignorance of those who are lashing out at him; they are upset because they want to think that our Catholic Church is perfect. That means that the people who lead it have to be perfect. I’m disappointed to tell you that not everyone in our church is perfect, and there are leaders who have really done some bad things - things that should outrage you. There were bishops who did move priests who were accused of molesting children to other parishes. That is horrible. Ironically, in the pit of my stomach I think you would rather punish someone like Fr. Breen who apologizes for these terrible actions because he has mentioned something that makes us look bad than you would those who actually abused the victims. I have been fortunate to have married a very good man, but there are people who have not been so lucky. I haven’t walked in the shoes of someone who has been abused, but I’m not stupid enough to think that they should stay with someone who abuses them. Fr. Breen is not encouraging people to divorce, but there are people who need us, the church, to get back on the right road. If you lock the door to all of the people who don’t fit your description of being a worthy Catholic, how happy will God be with you for not allowing his children to come home to Him? If you are more worried about closing the doors than opening the doors to church, then I think that you need to be more worried about what happens to your soul than you do his.

Just to follow up, I am a member of the Catholic Church, and I do not reject Jesus. I do believe that when we get to Heaven there will be people who are members of other denominations there as well. Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like some people think that you must be Catholic in order to accept Jesus. While I am Catholic, I don’t remember ever being taught to believe that Heaven is only for Catholics. I am thankful for the religious leaders in my life who taught me to love God and not simply to fear Him and judge others. My advice to you is to be the best person you can be and to stop worrying about Fr. Breen who will make it to Heaven more easily than the rest of us.

Lisa,
Your defense is understandable. No one is judging here, but rather making an assessment on the evidence provided. The evidence is strongly against Fr. Breen, and don’t be deceived that Rome does not know what they are doing and I am certain that they are keeping a close eye on him, with the expected air of courtesy that is necessary not to cause a panic with the faithful he is in charge of. The question is not really about who belongs in the Church or not, or who is following Christ or not. Nobody is closing the doors to anyone who will follow the truth. The real question is addressing how a priest is leading his flock. The ideas Fr. Breen is proposing are well accepted in other denominations. The Church has rules that are necessary for all to follow. This fosters unity. Discord is created in the opposing of the rules, and must be dealt with seriously. Idealistic ideas do nothing. I understand how a person like Fr. Breen could be influencial, but one must be wary of a priest who says the things he does. He may feel as if it fosters unity or attracts others to the Church, but in essence, it creates discord and confusion. A person who would be properly introduced to the Church needs to know the truths She teaches, accept them (or not) and make a decision. Saying that the Church is the only deposit of the Faith and of Truth is a strong statement to make, but I have yet to see anyone disprove this, therefore it is a truth. The day in which I am proven wrong will never be seen, so I am very confident of such a statement. One should remember history here, and the upheaval that Martin Luther caused (all in good faith, he believed) to the whole world. Luther just wanted to “change” the Church, and never expected the people to actually do what they did. It goes to show how far one errant idea can blow into a very big problem. I cannot see how anything that Fr. Breen is speaking against is a “problem” in the Church. It is people themselves that make it a problem, not the Church. But I doubt, Fr. Breen is attempting to start another Reformation, as Fr. Breen is not quite on that level, but an outspoken priest is a dangerous one. Other people will promote his ideas, and that is where the problems start. When one considers this, the danger of what could happen is evident. The result would ultimately be taking people from the Church rather than bringing them in. The Church is full of individuals (religious and laypersons alike) who should not be there, so bringing up the incident of pedophile priests is making a bad comparison, as I am certain everyone is very unhappy with the situation in the Church. The Church exists in order to instruct the faithful, not the other way around. Pedophile priests have nothing to do with heresy, just bad priests. It can happen anywhere in anyplace, so it is a rather weak argument. In all truth, there are many priests who should not be priests. I have encountered many of them in my day. Any religious who preaches their own agenda (social or political) and ideas contrary to Church teaching should always be viewed as suspicious. There are many “Catholic” religious and organizations who are only Catholic in name only, and many people get trapped into their snares all the time. One must be very careful. Heresy is heresy, and it is often presented in a very attractive package that is often never seen for being what it truly is.

One final word here: It would seem that everyone commenting here…for or against the Catholic Church in today’s culture ( that seems to be the topic all this has evolved into ) should spend some time with a good (i.e. balanced) book on Church history. In so doing anyone can see what has happened in the past when well-meaning people tried to “help” the Church by twisting or denying some teaching(s) that served as a stumbling block to their faith..It began in the 16th century with Martin Luther and as a result of that first step away…just look how many times since then someone has taken a further step away until today through-out the world we have untold number of so-called Christian denominations. There remains at the center of truth however the one, holy and apostolic Church! And Jesus has promised that inspite of or whatever the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…and it will be one, holy and apostolic to the end. Either you want to through obedience and humility and faith stay on board the ship…or you will cast yourself over-board in pursuit of your
“own truth” and self- will. We are all free to make that choice..even
God has promised He will not take that freedom from you. You get to
decide whether to stay ...or go! Once you divide yourself from the Truth you are no longer Catholic. You can call yourself whatever you want but the Lord knows the sheep from the goats…and the sheep know the voice of their Shephard. Period…..my last comment…I promise! Finis!!

Leanne
I am most sorry that one person in the Catholic Church hurt you!
I hope that your health problems are behind you now.
My wife had a similar problem… and she had a procedure abalation of the uterus… at 45 years of age… we had already had 2 children and this most likely would render her sterile… we thought about it and talked to people .. she tried alternative approaches that would not affect her fertility… finally we did it… not because it might provide birth control but because it would give her health…
If you took a birth control pill not to prevent conception, but to temporarily stop your monthly period during a medical period of testing then I do not think you sinned… (my wife would never share this information with anyone besides me) If you used birth control to prevent children then yes you did sin.. (who besides Jesus is freee of sin? perhaps Mary?)  I pray for healing for you!  In love and charity, Sam

“They should encourage them to read Scripture..”

That’s a BAD move.  If the average Roman Catholic reads Scripture, and he/she BELIVES in it, as the text is written, in context, they will turn into lapsed Catholics again.

Secondly, most priests have no idea of what Scripture says, they only parrot what they’ve been told by their bishops.

Not all Protestant churches endorse the ordination of women to the priesthood.  But my Roman Catholic bishop does - he even attended the ordination of a local (left-wing) Episcopal woman as bishop.  Her hat was too big for her petite frame.

Women ought not be ordained priests, and most certainly, not bishops, if for no other reason than that.  It looks silly - and it is 100% not Scriptural.  I HAVE read the Bible, though I still worship in a Catholic parish.

One thing that makes me think the Catholic Church is the true Church is that it does NOT always make me feel well with myself. The Church condemns my favorite sins, and confession is hard, and I have to love my enemy ... those are the kind of things that make me think the Church is for real. If they only wanted to take my money, it would be easier if they just said things like “find yourself”, or “be at peace with yourself”, or “follow your heart”. And by, the way, if the Church denies the Eucharist to some people, it is for their own sake, because if taken in sin, it can bring eternal death.

Jesus Christ himself said, “By their fruits you will know them…”

What kind of leadership has the USCCB had for the last few decades???

With just a few honorable exceptions, it seems to be made up of those who seek power, show greed (when was the last time you heard of the Bishop living in even middle class digs?), display moral cowardice by covering up crimianl acts by their subordinates repeatedly, and those who go along with such leadership…

Where is the preferential option for the poor and the denunciation of communal structures of sin, like the late Archbishop Oscar Romero, for instance???

One doesn’t develop a good character by living with crooks!

Cradle Catholic,

What are you talking about? First, I don’t get your comment, “Her hat was too big for her petite frame.” What does that have to do with anything we are talking about here? Second, I don’t think that you understand the preparation process to become a priest. I happen to know for sure that knowing what the Scripture says is something they do in the years that they are in the seminary, and third, reading scripture is never a BAD thing. It is a good thing, and you are not the only one who does it. Are you kidding me?

A woman priest was ordained as a bishop in her Episcopalean diocese, and our Roman Catholic bishop attended the ceremony.  Her bishop’s “Mitre” (I think that’s what it’s called) the tall headpiece bishops are given, was way too tall for her, as she’s not a large woman.

The reason I suggested Catholics NOT read Scripture is because when we are educated by what the Bible says, in context, we are harder to fool.

I am glad you read Scripture though and you, like me, have remained in the Catholic church.  The grass isn’t always greener someplace else, and I have never left the Catholic church, though God’s Word takes precedence for me over any extra-Biblical teachings or traditions.

Have a lovely Lord’s Day!  Thanks for asking me to clarify my comment.

I agree re: “by their fruit, you will know them..”

At Mass yesterday, the first reading was Isaiah mentioning that ‘fugitives’ would spread the Word about God and bring people home.

St. Paul was in prison when he wrote many of his letters spreading the Good News.  And God uses the foolish,to confound the wise; the weak to confront the strong; the lowly to stand up against the highly esteemed, and the despised, to share the Gospel, in season and out of season.

What are most of our Church leaders doing, and how can they be described by the above list?  Are they ‘foolish’ by their own measure, made WISE by being led by Jesus?  Are they weak, lowly and despised?

If not, many are ear-ticklers.  Lay people must self-educate and speak out for Godly values.

Perhaps it is time to close this popular article now that Fr Breen has
agreed to be obedient to his Bishop and Church. We have been told that
this man has been given an opportunity to recant (because as his Bishop has said of his many good works he has performed over the years as a
priest in good standing). He has offered to write a letter of apology
to the Pope as well as other gestures indicating his willingness to follow the Church’s teaching. It was either that said the Bishop or the canonical process to remove him would commence. It was also announced that he would remain as Pastor at St Edward’s until Dec 31st, 2011. All
in all I think Father would agree he is being treated with great charity and kindness by his superiors….given the great harm he could bring about had he continued in the error of his ways. God be praised and bless
this priest and his parishioners. Shall we move on?

It is the responsibility of every Catholic to read the “Bible”, and read the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.

You can not form a “good” conscience until you know all the facts of your Faith.
Your Soul and where you will spend Eternity - will depend on it.

Those over age 15 can easily understand the CCC.
Bishops and Priests should be encouraging reading these.  If they are not openly and prominently encouraging this, perhaps you have an issue in your Diocese or Parish that you need to look into, and then notify the Vatican with proof of the problem.

No matter where what has happened in your past, every Catholic has an obligation to read the “Bible” and “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.

A “right” conscience can not be formed without this information, which is easy to understand if you are over age 15.

Your soul and where you spend your eternity will depend upon it.

Bishops and Priests must be prominently, and publically encouraging that everyone in your Diocese read these.  If not, find out why.  If there is a serious problem, email the Vatican.

We each have an obligation to educate ourselves.

Reading the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” will allow each of us to disregard heretics like Breen.
In fact, it will allow us to challenge heretics, and prove our statements.

Breen probably never advised his parishoneers to read the CCC, so he could fill their heads with his personal heretical teachings.

According to this article, we must all have the same conscience… it sounds just a little over idealistic for me