to rebel: toresistorriseagainstsomeauthority,control,ortradition. The Catholic Church hierarchy is some areas of the Western world have given the laity a "licence to rebel". This license, like the nefarious permission given to James Bond as a secret agent to do away with whoever threatens either Britain or the free world, is a carte blanche permission. The laity have been given permission to use contraception, not go to weekly Mass, skip Confession, wear whatever beachwear in Church, not pray at home, not raise children in the Faith, support ssm, and push for wymynpriests.
A licence to rebel does not have negative worldly consequences. On the contrary, Bond always had perqs.
The perqs of those licenced to rebel are sometimes prominent positions in the Church, in chancery offices, and in parishes, two kids and a RangeRover, with multiple holidays, gay lifestyles, self-centered lives.
Who gives the licence to rebel? Bond got his authority from those above him. He acted within a framework of espionage and murder, as well as fornication and a coldness of heart.
So, too, some of the laity licenced to rebel have hardened their hearts against those who do not have such a licence, but a conscience formed by the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Who is responsible for Bond? Both his authorities and Bond.
In other words, there are two authorities in the present Church, working side-by-side but against each other.
One is the Church Militant and one is the group of those licenced to rebel. Each claim authority. One is undercover.
Some people are using the term indifferentism in religious contexts which are confusing. When I use the term on this blog, I am referring to the heresy. I do not mean apathetic. If you have been following this blog, you will know I am using the term NOT meaning not concerned.. In fact, counting the common usage, there are several definitions of indifferentism.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia: The term given, in general, to all those theories, which, for one reason or another, deny that it is the duty of man to worship God by believing and practicing the one true religion. This is religious indifferentism, condemned by the Church and refers to the fact that the Catholic Faith is the one, true Faith. Then, there is political indifferentism, which does not acknowledge a hierarchy of religions. This religiousIndifferentism is to be distinguished from political indifferentism, which is applied to the policy of a state that treats all the religions within its borders as being on an equal footing before the law of the country. Indifferentism is not to be confounded with religious indifference. The former is primarily a theory disparaging the value of religion; the latter term designates the conduct of those who, whether they do or do not believe in the necessity and utility of religion, do in fact neglect to fulfil its duties. The CE goes on to define terms exactly. For example, dualistic materialism-Marxism-is a type of absolute indifferentism. Any belief which denies the final goal of man as spiritual and which denigrates individualism is a type of absolute indifferentism.
Under the above general definition come those philosophic systems which reject the ultimate foundation of all religion, that is,man's acknowledgment of his dependence on a personal creator, whom, in consequence of this dependence, he is bound to reverence, obey, and love. This error is common to all atheistic, materialistic, pantheistic, and agnosticphilosophies. If there is no God, as the Atheist professes to believe, or if God be but the sum of material forces, or if the Supreme Being is an all-embracing, all-confounding totality in which human individuality is lost, then the personal relationship in which religion takes its rise does not exist. Again, if the humanmind is incapable of attaining certitude as to whether God exists or not, or is even unable to form any valid idea of God, it follows that religious worship is a mere futility. This error is shared also by the Deists, who, while they admit the existence of a personal God, deny that he demands any worship from His creatures. These systems are answered by the apologist who proves that every one is bound to practice religion as a duty towards God, and in order that he may attain the end for which he has been called into existence.
Again, here is expanded definition of the type which states all religions are the same.
In distinction from this absolute Indifferentism, a restricted form of the error admits the necessity of religion on account, chiefly, of its salutary influence on humanlife. But it holds that all religions are equally worthy and profitable to man, and equally pleasing to God. The classic advocate of this theory is Rousseau, who maintains, in his "Emile", that God looks only to the sincerity of intention, and that everybody can serve Him by remaining in the religion in which he has been brought up, or by changing it at will for any other that pleases him more (Emile, III). This doctrine is widely advocated today on the grounds that, beyond thetruth of God's existence, we can attain to no certain religious knowledge; and that, since God has left us thus in uncertainty, He will be pleased with whatever form of worship we sincerely offer Him. The full reply to this error consists in the proof that Godhas vouchsafed to man a supernatural revelation, embodying a definite religion, which He desires that all should embrace and practice. Without appealing to this fact, however, a little consideration suffices to lay bare the inherent absurdity of thisdoctrine. All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship ofignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are inerror. The constituent elements of a religion are beliefs to be held by the intellect, precepts to be observed, and a form ofworship to be practiced. Now — to confine ourselves to the great religions of the world — Judaism, Mohammedanism,Christianity, and the religions of India and the Orient are in direct antagonism by their respective creeds, moral codes, and cults. To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth andfalsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for,truth. If we deny this we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason. Turn to the ethical side of the question. Here again there is conflict over almost all the great moral issues. Let an illustration or two suffice. Mohammedanism approves polygamy,Christianity uncompromisingly condemns it as immoral. If these two teachers are equally trustworthy guides of life, then there is no such thing as fixed moral values at all. If the obscene orgies of phallic worship are as pure in the sight of God as the austere worship that was conducted in the temple of Jerusalem, then we must hold the Deity to be destitute of all moral attributes, in which case there would be no grounds for religion at all. The fact is that this type of Indifferentism, though verbally acknowledging the excellence and utility of religion, nevertheless, when pressed by logic, recoils into absolute Indifferentism. "All religions are equally good" comes to mean, at bottom, that religion is good for nothing. Another take on indifferentism is explained here. The long explanation is worth reading. Freemasonry falls into the first two categories and Anglicanism falls into this third one.
Liberal or latitudinarian indifferentism
Origin and growth
The foregoing types of Indifferentism are conveniently called infidel, to distinguish them from a third, which, while acknowledging the unique Divine origin and character of Christianity, and its consequent immeasurable superiority over all rival religions, holds that what particular ChristianChurch or sect one belongs to is an indifferent matter; all forms of Christianity are on the same footing, all are equally pleasing to God and serviceable to man. On approaching this third error one may advantageously inquire into the genesis of Indifferentism in general. In doing so we shall find that liberal Indifferentism, as the third type is called, although it arises in belief, is closely akin to that of infidelity; and this community of origin will account for the tendency which is today working towards the union of both in a common mire of scepticism. Indifferentism springs from Rationalism. By Rationalism here we understand the principle that reason is the sole judge and discoverer of religious truth as of all other kinds of truth. It is the antithesis of the principle of authority which asserts that God, by a supernatural revelation, has taught man religious truths that are inaccessible to our mere unaided reason, as well as other truths which, though not absolutely beyond the native powers of reason, yet could not by reason alone be brought home to the generality of men with the facility, certitude, and freedom fromerror required for the right ordering of life. From the earliest ages of the Church the rationalistic spirit manifested itself in various heresies. During the Middle Ages it infected the teachings of many notable philosophers and theologians of the schools, and reigned unchecked in the Moorish centres of learning. Its influence may be traced through the Renaissance to the rise of theReformation (see RATIONALISM). From the beginning of the Reformation the rationalistic current flowed with ever-increasing volume through two distinct channels, which, though rising apart, have been gradually approaching each other. The one operated through purely philosophic thought which, wherever it set itself free from the authority of the Church, has on the whole served to display what has been justlycalled the "all-corroding, all-dissolving scepticism of the intellect in religious matters". Rationalistic speculation gave rise successively to the EnglishDeism of the eighteenth century, to the school of the French Encyclopaedists and their descendants, and to the various German systems of anti-Christian thought. It has culminated in the prevalent materialistic, monistic, andagnosticphilosophies of today. When the Reformers rejected the dogmatic authority of the living Church they substituted for it that of the Bible. But their rule of faith was the Bible, interpreted by private judgment. This doctrine introduced the principle ofRationalism into the very structure of Protestantism. The history of that movement is a record of continually increasing divisions, multiplications of sects, with a steady tendency to reduce the contents of a fixed dogmatic creed. In a few words Cardinal Newman has summed up the lesson of that history: "Experience proves surely that the Bible does not answer a purpose for which it was never intended. It may be accidentally the means of converting individuals; but a book after all cannot make a stand against the wild living intellect of man, and in this day it begins to testify, as regards its own structure and contents, to the power of that universal solvent which is so successfully acting upon religious establishments" (Apologia pro Vita Sua, London, 1883, v. 245). As divisions increased in the general body of Protestantism, and as domestic dissensions arose in the bosom of particular denominations, some of the leaders endeavoured to find a principle of harmony in the theory that the essential doctrines of Christianity are summed up in a few great, simple truths which are clearly expressed in Scripture, and that, consequently, whoever believes these and regulates his life accordingly is a true follower of Christ. This movement failed to stay the process of disintegration, and powerfully promoted the opinion that, provided one accepts Christianity as the true religion, it makes little difference to what particular denomination one adheres. The view spread that there is no creed definitely set forth in Scripture, therefore all are of equal value, and all profitable to salvation. Large numbers in the Church of England adopted this opinion, which came to be known as Liberalism or Latitudinarianism. It was not, however, confined to one form of Protestantism, but obtained adherents in almost every body inheriting from the Reformation. The effort was made to reconcile it with the official confessions by introducing the policy of permitting every one to interpret the compulsory formulae in his own sense. Indifferentism, liberal and infidel, has been vigorously promoted during the past half century by the dominance of Rationalism in all the lines of scientific inquiry which touch upon religion. The theory of evolution applied to the origin of man, Biblical criticism of the Old and New Testament, the comparative study of religions, archaeology, and ethnology, in the hands of men who assume as their primary postulate that there is no supernatural, and that all religions, Christianity included, are but the offspring of the feeling and thought of the natural man, have propagated a general atmosphere of doubt or positive unbelief. As a result, large numbers of Protestants have abandoned all distinctly Christianbelief, while others, still clinging to the name, have emptied their creed of all its essential dogmatic contents. The doctrine of Scriptural inspiration and inerrancy is all but universally abandoned. It would not, perhaps, be incorrect to say that the prevalent view today is that Christ taught no dogmatic doctrine, His teaching was purely ethical, and its only permanent and valuable content is summed up in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. When this point is reached the Indifferentism which arose in belief joins hands with the Indifferentism of infidelity. The latter substitutes for religion, the former advocates as the only essential of religion, the broad fundamental principles of natural morality, such as justice, veracity, and benevolence that takes concrete form in social service. In some minds this theory of life is combined with Agnosticism, in others with a vague Theism, while in many it is still united with some vestiges of the Christian Faith. Along with the intellectual cause just noted, another has been what one might call the automatic influence proceeding from the existence of many religions side by side in the same country. This condition has given rise to the political indifferentism referred to in the opening of this article. Where this state of affairs prevails, when men of various creeds meet one another in political, commercial, and social life, in order that they may carry on their relations harmoniously they will not demand any special recognition of their own respective denominations. Personal intercourse fosters the spirit of tolerance, and whoever does not unflinchingly hold to the truth that there is but one true religion is apt to be guided in his judgments by the maxim, "From their fruits ye shall know them." On observing that probity and good intention mark the lives of some of his associates who differ in their religious beliefs, he may easily come to the conclusion that one religion is as good as another. Probably, however, many who speak thus would acknowledge the fallacy of this view if pushed by argument. On the other hand, great numbers of theoretical Indifferentists display unmistakable hostility to the CatholicChurch; while, again, persons devoid of all religious belief, favour the Church as an efficient element of police for the preservation of the social order.
Check out other posts with the tags...and this one especially:
Father Edward Holloway, of the Faith Movement in England, coined the phrase used by the priest at Mass this morning, regarding this feast day of SS. Thomas More and John Fisher.
"The end point of the Reformation", the phrase used by Fr. Hugh, refers to the fact that England is still reeling from the secularization and fragmentation of Faith brought on by Henry VIII's break with Rome, and with morality.
Indeed, it was not only Tradition that was broken by the English Revolt, but the cultural positions on morality and ethics, pushing the English into a relativism and individualism the results of which we see today in society.
Nothing is new and all have roots in sin and degradation. That a society with law and juries would put to death such lights of Europe at Thomas More and John Fisher created a schizophrenia of justice and a break with the Greco-Roman tradition of law and order impacts us all in the West today.
Lutheranism would have remained a continental aberration and may have even faded if Henry and those who sought riches and new positions of aristocracy, by stealing from the Church, had not been the opportunists of the day. Power, money, titles became more important than prayer, fasting, obedience to Holy Mother Church and the Representative of Christ on Earth, Peter, the Pope.
To state that we are still experiencing the Reformation, or Revolt, as I prefer to call it, is an insight into the long arm of evil reaching down into our present day--the results of the Revolt were the Enlightenment and the relegation of the Catholic Truth into private lives and out of the public domain. This was the continuation of Machiavelli's real politique, not invented by him, but defined, and part of the reality of English history, up to the present time. The modernist heresies are all embedded in this Revolt, as well, with Tradition and authority undermined to the point of complete disdain for the Scriptures and the Liturgy as well as the Vatican.
The fight continues and we shall see more martyrs, some "green" and some "red". Suffering for the Faith is the test of the real Catholic. If you are not suffering for your Faith, at this point of the Reformation, you are not living your Faith.
I would like to quote Michael Davies as well today, as it was not the people who wanted change, but one leader and his minions:
If the Protestant claim that because the Reformation in England happened it must have been both necessary and wanted is incorrect, then why did it take place? The answer is simple. The innovations in both doctrine and liturgy during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I were imposed on the people from above without any evidence of popular support for the changes among the people. The Protestant historian Sir Maurice Powicke accepts this unequivocally: "The Reformation in England was a parliamentary transaction. All the important changes were made under statutes, and the actions of the King as supreme head of the Church were done under a title and in virtue of powers given to him by statute." 31The only instance of such popular support for religious change in England was for the restoration of the Catholic Faith during the tragically brief reign of Mary Tudor. Another Protestant historian, Professor S. T. Bindoff notes that soon after Mary's accession to the throne in 1553: ". . . the Mass was being celebrated in London churches 'not by commandment but of the people's devotion', and news was coming in of its unopposed revival throughout the country." 32 Catholicism flourished once again in Mary's reign. http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/john-fisher5.htm
Also from Davies book, two notes which caught my eye--one, that John Fisher was ordained at 22, with a Papal Dispensation. Happy event! The second was that one of his sisters, Elizabeth, a Dominican nun, refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, and fled England, living and dying on the then island of Zeeland, part of the Netherlands. We do not know anything about her, but she had to become an exile for her faith in the Primacy of Peter.
We have a leadership crisis in the Church world-wide, but especially in GB and America. Let us pray to these great men whose feast we celebrate today, June 22nd, for leaders, both lay and clerical. Otherwise, the end point of the Revolt will end in a desiccation in the Church--a worse scenario than under the "reforming" Tudors.
SS. Thomas More and John Fisher, pray for us. And, happy name day to my son.
Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA’s role as a “new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.” FEMA’s powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the National Security Act of 1947 allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities. 1950 Defense Production Act gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy. Act of August 29, 1916 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency. International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.
I am so grateful that I am a Catholic. I have great guidance in the formation of conscience. God through Revelation and Tradition, that is, the Scriptures and the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, forms my conscience. No group or no person does that. I share some thoughts for consideration, as lately I have met several Catholics who are older adults who have not formed their conscience to the teaching of the Church.
These people are Gnostics, and believe that because they listen to the "Holy Spirit" that they do not have to listen to the Church on many issues.
Sadly, they will not read my blog and they do not read the CCC. I find it interesting that so many Catholic adults here have never opened the Catechism. This is basic teaching for us. Look especially at 1791 and 1792 and the bold text is my highlighting.
ARTICLE 6 MORAL CONSCIENCE 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."47 I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE 1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment. 1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53 II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE 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. 1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart. 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55 III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. 1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts. 1789Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it; - the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56 - charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58 IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. 1791This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. 1792Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
IN BRIEF 1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths" (GS 16). 1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. 1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope. 1798 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. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience. 1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. 1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt. 1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.