I have collected various Catholic editorial headlines about this… *“The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong…you should always follow your conscience.... Pope Francis on Saturday reaffirmed the “primacy” of using one's conscience to navigate tough moral questions in his ….Conscience takes priority over church teaching…Both the natural law and the Church have always upheld the moral necessity for each person to act in accordance with the dictates of his or her conscience.. 'It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so.”* I do not understand this teaching. What Biblical or Catholic Tradition or natural law demands this teaching? The Catechism (#1782) and references to some Encyclicals seem to just repeat each other without a firm basis for this teaching. It seems counter intuitive and against right reason that everybody MUST do whatever they think is right despite a misinformed conscience, an erroneous conscience, a lax conscience, a dead conscience, and more. I understand the teaching that conscience should be formed rightly but how can Primacy of conscience be justified (even when wrong) above obeying certain teaching of the Catholic Church? I am not interested in theologians opinions, I am looking for firm and definitive teaching of Biblical, unanimous Church Tradition or natural law.

*Quodlibet* III, q. 12 a. 2 co. : >it must be said that every conscience, whether right or erroneous, whether in things evil in themselves or in things indifferent, is obligatory, such that he who acts against conscience sins. > >Latin :
Et ideo dicendum est quod omnis conscientia, sive recta, sive erronea, sive in per se malis, sive in indifferentibus, est obligatoria; ita quod qui contra conscientiam facit, peccat. > >Davies, O.P. & Nevitt transl. :
conscience is always binding, whether it is mistaken or not, and whether it is a question of things evil in themselves or morally neutral. Therefore, it is a sin to act against one’s conscience.

Specifically, I'm interested in works (articles, books, etc.) explicating the philosophical dimensions and implications of the idea that the law is written upon our hearts. That seems to me to suggest a certain kind of epistemology, and I would greatly appreciate resources that would help me learn more about it. Thanks in advance!

Revelation 20:10 depicts hell in the following manner (NKJV, emphasis mine): > The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be **tormented day and night forever and ever**. Also, while it doesn't directly say the torment is eternal, Revelation 14:11 comes close as well (NKJV, emphasis mine): > And the smoke of their **torment** ascends **forever and ever**; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. Aside from these two verses in Revelation, do any other Books of the Bible depict eternal torment, or is the symbolic Book of Revelation the only source for eternal torment? I'm not looking for verses that discuss eternal "punishment" (which is vaguer) or verses that speak of just "torment" without saying such is forever/eternal. Rather, I'm looking specifically for verses that depict torment/torture as being eternal/forever.

Here ([*On Conscience and the Pope*](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html)) is found an essay written by St. John Henry Newman. It begins as follows: > IT seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. I found this essay published in 1875 by The Catholic Publication Society here: [*A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation: Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching*](https://ia904704.us.archive.org/10/items/a678635200newmuoft/a678635200newmuoft.pdf) . The link contains an expanded title. However, this book has neither Approbation or Imprimatur by competent *Catholic* ecclesiastical authority. QUESTION: Does anyone know of a publication which contains the above essay; and which comes with a valid Imprimatur? Preferably, the book will be accessible online. If not, that's O.K. too.

According to St. John Henry Newman (in his essay on Conscience): However, [*Papal Encyclicals Online*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#25) , says nothing of the sort. Unlike previous Councils, the proceedings were not formally recorded. Hence, we must rely on other sources which provide accounts from observers of the Council. Question: Can someone produce evidence that the Fourth Lateran Council promulgated what Newman indicates on conscience?

Some (for example, Pat Donahue, the owner of bibledebates.info ) contend that unintentional sins separate a person from God just as much as deliberate sins will. By contrast, others (such as Bob Myhan and others Donahue debated) argue that an unintentional sin will only separate someone from God if the individual discovers it's sinful but does not repent. This distinction is important, so I would like to read more about the subject. What are the names of these two contrasting positions? The website calls Myhan's position "continual cleansing," but is this a precise term? Also, if other positions exist, what are their names?

According to the Catholic Church, if a Catholic's own interpretation of scripture leads to a conclusion regarding what scripture says that the Catholic Church holds is heretical (for ex., denying Trinitarianism), and this Catholic publicly says so, but he also publicly holds that the Catholic Church's position is correct, due to the authority of the Magisterium (so, he concludes that his own reasoning regarding scripture must be mistaken, as plain as it may seem to him), is he a heretic?

Lots of corporations and non-profit organizations do good work, and Catholics may want to invest in them or donate to them. But, although lots of good work might be done by a corporation or non-profit, they might also participate in grave evils, through the funding of abortion, slave labor, teaching falsehoods on sexual ethics or providing contraception, etc. Catholics who want to donate or invest in these groups might want to verify beforehand that their money will not be used to cooperate with these evils, *especially formally*, as a matter of conscience. It would be helpful to us if someone knows of a Catholic database designed for this purpose.

Many Catholic friends of mine are seeking religious exemptions to the various Covid-19 mandates. Especially ones who either work from home can prove acquired immunity. For them, notwithstanding the argument against infanticide - which is very strong, the argument against reason is antecedent. When Pope John Paul II writes something like: > In the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the principle that force predominates over reason was carried to the extreme. Man was compelled to submit to a conception of reality imposed on him by coercion, and not reached by virtue of his own reason and the exercise of his own freedom. This principle must be overturned and total recognition must be given to the rights of the human conscience, which is bound only to the truth, both natural and revealed. The recognition of these rights represents the primary foundation of every authentically free political order > > [Centesiumus Annus p.29](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html) It gives them pause, they are being told that they cannot use political or sociological arguments for not getting vaccinated, but this is an argument put forth by the Holy Father, promulgated to the entire world that rights of human conscience _natural_ and _revealed_ must be respected or else we're headed to ruin. It could be argued that the common good is served by standing up for reason over and above the common good of boosting numbers of vaccinated individuals. I could argue that all day long, but St. John Paul II bolsters my argument and phrases it in a perfect way I could never even dream of. I believe he was divinely inspired. Now, for the purpose of my question. Do the Popes intend the faithful to assent to the truths they speak in their encyclicals as a matter of faith or as a matter of reason?

According to Catholicism, only mortal sins result in condemnation and a mortal sin requires the act to be grave matter and to have been committed with full knowledge and consent of the will. > But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever”. -[Veritatis Splendor 67](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html) Does "legitimate exception" mean a person is culpable regardless of full knowledge or consent and regardless of conscience?

There are numerous stories on the National Catholic Register about Bishops who have decided to [prohibit priests](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/monterey-bishop-prohibits-religious-exemption-from-covid-vaccine-mandates) in their dioceses from granting religious exceptions for Covid-19 vaccines. Is there any reason that an individual Catholic shouldn't seek a religious exemption from a member of the clergy who shares their concerns with the nature of the vaccines, even if is not their parish priest?

A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience *must* overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2 on [*Gaudium et spes*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes) , specifically its [Article 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html) . I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics. > For [Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman) , conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. *Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.* This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that *genuine* ecclesiastical obedience *does* accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above. So: **What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?** I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts. 1. [Video and transcript here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no) ; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is **emphatically not**; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from *Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare* (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

We read in 1 Cor 10: 27-29 how St. Paul takes a liberal view on the culinary habits of the faithful : > If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. But St. Paul goes on to state in Verse 29 and 30: > For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks? What St. Paul advises the faithful in Verses 27 -29 (first half), is that one should not create scandal for a man of simple faith, by eating the food offered to pagan gods . But in Verses 29 (second half) and 30, he appears to be saying that one should develop one's own conscience which is not guided by that of another person. My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, is there an apparent contradiction between the intent of St. Paul in 1 Cor 10: 27-29 vis-a-vis that in verses 29-30? How does the Catholic Church explain the contradiction?**

Like most of the planet, I've been taking in gobs of information about Covid-19 and vaccinations. The latest news I read was that even the horribly [abortion tainted](https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/) Johnson and Johnson vaccine is permissible to take as long as there are no alternatives and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are somehow examples of the means justifying the ends because of their remoteness. So that first paragraph notwithstanding (I mean completely discounting abortion from this answer which has short circuited what I think is a more important and more imperative thing for the average Catholic to deal with), do we as Catholics need to "Trust Dr. Fauci"? Like the President implores us to? Or should we trust our consciences. Our parish priest said that if we choose to not get the vaccine we should protect society in other ways, but can that mean telling our neighbors to chill out, take off their masks and stop worrying so much about Covid-19; trusting God, if not the odds over the science? Or does it mean that we still need to believe everything else that the authorities tell us about Covid-19 and more-or-less become hermits just so we can avoid taking a vaccine?

So my impetus for this question is covid-19 vaccines, but it could be about anything from face masks to filling out the census. If the Catholic Church doesn't officially say something is wrong, is it licit for an individual adherent of the Catholic church to exempt himself or his family from that thing using religion as the basis for that exemption? For instance, Quakers claim a religious exemption from wars on the grounds that their religion is pacifist. Now, I know Catholics have also claimed this religious exception (e.g. Dorthy Day, Daniel Berrigan), but I also know that the Church has Just War doctrine and the magisterial teaching of the Church did not explicitly forbid Catholics from participating in any wars protested in the last century. So, would these objectors been right (in the eyes of the Church) in calling their objections religious objections or were their objections merely a matter of personal conscience?

I watched *A Man for All Seasons* a few years ago and I know that somehow St. Thomas More found a loophole that his family could remain Catholic and Faithful and in England while he had had no choice but to be beheaded to remain faithful. What was the precise argument that he used to justify his departure from this life while his family still lived in hopes that they could remain landed and Catholic?

The Holy Ghost is usually described as the member of the Godhead that helps us know what is true, prompts us to do good, and generally helps us feel God's influence. I've often heard it described as something similar to a "conscience" that helps us know what is right and what is wrong. I've heard very similar descriptions for the Light of Christ. Both are available in some degree to everyone, and both are experienced less when we go against God's will. So what's the difference between the two, or are they the same thing?

[Richard Baxter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baxter) , the famous Puritan writer, wrote: >In a word, that in all your neglects of duty, your **sticking at the supposed labor or cost of a godly life**, yea, in all your cold and lazy prayers and performances, conscience might tell you how unsuitable such endeavors are to the reward; and that Christ and salvation should not be so slighted. (Source ) What does he mean by this?

Pope Francis made some recent comments in a letter , which are being summarized in headlines like, "Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences." Does the full context of the Pope's remarks represent a change in doctrine?