16 September 2020

Primacy of Whatever Via James Martin, SJ

Everyone's favourite heretic is quoting St Thomas Aquinas in support of his heresy. OMM quotes the Angelic Doctor at length to prove Martin is lying through his teeth.

From One Mad Mom


I’m just going to be blunt for a change. (OK, wipe that coffee off your computer screen and keep reading…) Fr. James Martin, SJ wants to keep you stupid. He’s going to cherry pick quotes, documents, the Catholic Catechism, etc., until he manipulates you into thinking “primacy of conscience” simply means if you think something is OK, then you can do it because it’s simply the way you think it ought to be. He’s right that you have the freedom to choose whatever, and that includes sin. He just suggests that your acceptance of sin somehow negates the fact that it is, indeed, still a sin. He’s also going to try to lead people to believe that everything is a prudential judgment and there are no intrinsically evil acts. (Well, except immigration, war, how to deal with poverty, etc. On these actual prudential subjects, you must agree with him or you are engaging in some sort of evil act.) Lastly, he’s going to try to convince you that you don’t need to use due diligence in seeking the truth, whether you like it or not. You simply have to listen to his pretty words instead of looking at what the Church teaches.
  1. In a comment attached to another misleading America Magazine article, Martin, SJ says this:
    https://www.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/posts/10157311153546496
    Dear friends: We’ve been talking a lot about the primacy of conscience this week, when it comes to elections. Here’s my favorite article on the topic, which outlines the often misunderstood Catholic teaching on the primacy of conscience. (And yes, St. Thomas Aquinas famously said he’d rather be excommunicated than go against his conscience.) I hope this provides good help as we move towards a big decision. Pray with the Gospels, know church teaching and rely on your informed conscience.
    Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.
    First of all, James Martin, SJ is no Thomas Aquinas (and my Dominican friends cheer). He spent a vast amount of time searching for the Truth as it really was, not as he wanted it to be. He had an extremely well-formed conscience and, yes, he was wrong a time or two, but he was humbly so after exercising due diligence in seeking out the Truth to the best of his ability. This is not what Fr. Martin is encouraging people to do.
    Unfortunately, Fr. Martin, SJ fails to explain how to have a well-formed conscience. His idea is more like “I thunk on it and I like what I thunk.” He acts like you have no duty to, or at best, he doesn’t explain how your conscience should be well-formed. We must be diligent in seeking the truth to claim a well-formed conscience, and that well-formed conscience is key when it come to primacy of conscience. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t work here. So, yes, let’s quote more writings from Aquinas where he explains what you do not!
    Article 2. Whether ignorance is a sin?
    Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is “a word, deed or desire contrary to God’s law,” as stated above (I-II:71:5). Now ignorance does not denote an act, either internal or external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.
    Objection 2. Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of knowledge is not a sin.
    Objection 3. Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in so far as it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being voluntary, it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the will, rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not be a sin, but rather a result of sin.
    Objection 4. Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor does any sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain in act. Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in act, all its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance is not a sin, unless perchance it be original sin.
    Objection 5. Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be sinning, as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is continual in the one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance would be continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance would be a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.
    On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: “If any man know not, he shall not be known.” Therefore ignorance is a sin.
    I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
    Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (I-II:71:6 ad 1), when we say that sin is a “word, deed or desire,” we include the opposite negations, by reason of which omissions have the character of sin; so that negligence, in as much as ignorance is a sin, is comprised in the above definition of sin; in so far as one omits to say what one ought, or to do what one ought, or to desire what one ought, in order to acquire the knowledge which we ought to have.
    Reply to Objection 2. Although privation of grace is not a sin in itself, yet by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, it may have the character of sin, even as ignorance; nevertheless even here there is a difference, since man can acquire knowledge by his acts, whereas grace is not acquired by acts, but by God’s favor.
    Reply to Objection 3. Just as in a sin of transgression, the sin consists not only in the act of the will, but also in the act willed, which is commanded by the will; so in a sin of omission not only the act of the will is a sin, but also the omission, in so far as it is in some way voluntary; and accordingly, the neglect to know, or even lack of consideration is a sin.
    Reply to Objection 4. Although when the guilt has passed away through repentance, the ignorance remains, according as it is a privation of knowledge, nevertheless the negligence does not remain, by reason of which the ignorance is said to be a sin.
    Reply to Objection 5. Just as in other sins of omission, man sins actually only at the time at which the affirmative precept is binding, so is it with the sin of ignorance. For the ignorant man sins actually indeed, not continually, but only at the time for acquiring the knowledge that he ought to have.
    Article 3. Whether ignorance excuses from sin altogether?
    Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance excuses from sin altogether. For as Augustine says (Retract. i, 9), every sin is voluntary. Now ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
    Objection 2. Further, that which is done beside the intention, is done accidentally. Now the intention cannot be about what is unknown. Therefore what a man does through ignorance is accidental in human acts. But what is accidental does not give the species. Therefore nothing that is done through ignorance in human acts, should be deemed sinful or virtuous.
    Objection 3. Further, man is the subject of virtue and sin, inasmuch as he is partaker of reason. Now ignorance excludes knowledge which perfects the reason. Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
    On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) that “some things done through ignorance are rightly reproved.” Now those things alone are rightly reproved which are sins. Therefore some things done through ignorance are sins. Therefore ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin.
    I answer that, Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles 1 and 2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.
    On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
    Reply to Objection 1. Not every ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Hence not every ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
    Reply to Objection 2. So far as voluntariness remains in the ignorant person, the intention of sin remains in him: so that, in this respect, his sin is not accidental.
    Reply to Objection 3. If the ignorance be such as to exclude the use of reason entirely, it excuses from sin altogether, as is the case with madmen and imbeciles: but such is not always the ignorance that causes the sin; and so it does not always excuse from sin altogether.”
    So, Father Martin, why did you promote an article that cherry-picked Aquinas’ writings when you could have just posted this? Could it be because the article is manipulative as you are? Hmmmm????
    Now let’s talk about the article Fr. Martin linked. It’s deficiencies and omissions are completely summed up in it’s very last paragraph:
    To repeat the opening of this essay, no Catholic is “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor…is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious” (“Declaration on Religious Freedom,” No. 3) or moral. Joseph Ratzinger pointed out that “not everything that exists in the church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition…. There is a distorting as well as legitimate tradition.” The long adherence of the church to teachings on the taking of interest on loans, slavery and religious freedom are well-known examples of distorting moral traditions that it now rejects. Father Ratzinger concluded to what is obvious: “consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and places both the council’s and the church’s teaching beyond doubt: women and men have “the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions” (No. 1782). In his homily at the synod’s closing Mass, Pope Francis told the assembled bishops that “God is not afraid of new things. That is why he is continuously surprising us, and guiding us in unexpected ways.” The authority and inviolability of a well-informed and therefore well-formed conscience is not among those new things; it is the long-standing Catholic way to choosing the true and the good.
    James Martin, SJ and America Magazine bank on you never bothering to look up anything in context. Let’s not be that willfully ignorant. If one actually looked it up, they’d see America Mag’s glaring omissions. How about we go from the CCC 1782 all the way to 1783. Whew! That was hard.
    1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1783.htm
    Oops. I’m sure Fr. Martin, et. al., meant to tell you about that.
    And how about that Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) #3?
    3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.
    Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.
    Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.
    On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. 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. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.
    There is a further consideration. The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.
    In other words, you have to form your conscience around the teachings of the Church. This doesn’t mean you bend the teachings of the Church around your ill-formed conscience and call it good.
    And lastly, there’s this little gem from the America Mag article:
    not everything that exists in the church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition…. There is a distorting as well as legitimate tradition
    Speaking of distortion, the author is actually trying to distort by not differentiating between traditions with little “t” and Traditions with big “T.” This quote is repeatedly used to confuse people about the difference between doctrine and discipline, most often in trying to lead you to believe that Church doctrine on sex will change, so it’s not surprising to find it here.
    This article from Catholic Culture (not going to reinvent the wheel) https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063 is a far more thorough teaching on “Primacy of Conscience” than Fr. Martin will give you. He wants to keep you stupid. Don’t rely on him to help you form your conscience or you will never get there. Every time he points to a Church teaching, please, do yourself a favor and look it up for completeness and context. I’m happy to have you do that with anything I write. Fr. Martin? Not so much.
    So, before you make a decision that could very well excommunicate you, you might want to invest a lot of time striving to form your conscience well. That starts with knowing what in the heck that means, because following Fr. Martin into the land of rainbows and lollipops might get you somewhere you don’t want to be.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)