Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences

guardian ^ | 11 September 2013 | Lizzie Davies

[Religion Moderator]

There were no complaints, your post was pulled because it was “making it personal.”

[Freestate316]

The pope’s statement certainly does not provide cover for them before God, because He sees beyond their political facade and into the depths of their hearts. What I was implying is that it gives them area to portray themselves as “people of faith” before the low information voter without having to stand up for any core values or beliefs that are incongruous with liberal doctrine. To liberals, the truth of the Gospel has no impact on their values, but only serves as window dressing to fool the masses into believing they actually have mainstream moral values.

[marshmallow]

This is the only thread on FR where this is being discussed, and although it is not a caucus thread it is being treated like one

Garbage.

I posted a thread on this very subject yesterday.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Those comments were also Ex Cathedra.:

Hey, jboot---You mean not ex cathedra. Not "from the chair."

It's hard to give an adequate catechesis on conscience in one go. I always start by telling my RCIA students that, as Pope Pius XII said, "Conscience is a student, not a teacher."

Also: "Conscience has duties before it has rights." The Duties of conscience include formation, information and conformation.

Formation means acquiring habits of virtue, including the habit of diligently seeking out wisdom and knowledge.

Information means "getting the facts." None of conscience's judgments are worth a flip if they're based on feelings or preferences rather than moral and practical facts.

Conformation means being conformed to the Mind of Christ.

A conscience which has fulfilled these duties is a conscience that deserves respect.

But maybe Pope Francis will bring out these points, or something similar, in Lesson 2!

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's true, some people don't seem to be interiorly disturbed about rejecting Christ. I observe, though, that though they may have buried their consciences, they may have buried them alive.

Maybe with some atheists, just reminding them that they have a conscience and are still obliged to do good and avoid evil, is a big first step.

You might be interested in what I wrote over here: #44

[don-o]

for later

[armydoc]

Thank you for that lesson on conscience. Quite helpful and I agree with all of the points. Unfortunately, it makes the Pope's appeal to the atheist's conscience all the more baffling. To wit:

The Duties of conscience include formation, information and conformation. Formation means acquiring habits of virtue, including the habit of diligently seeking out wisdom and knowledge. Information means "getting the facts." None of conscience's judgments are worth a flip if they're based on feelings or preferences rather than moral and practical facts. Conformation means being conformed to the Mind of Christ.

Great stuff. The atheist, certainly the "comfortable" athiest, may or may not have attained some level of formation and information but, by definition, has not attained any signficant level of conformation. Why on earth then would the Pope appeal to such a deficient conscience?

as Pope Pius XII said, "Conscience is a student, not a teacher."

The teacher, presumably, is Holy Scripture (plus Tradition/Magisterium I'm sure you would add). The Pope is appealing to a student who has never been taught. Rather than appealing to this ignorant student, the Pope should have directed them to the Teacher. Something like "you may have a clear conscience regarding your atheism, but your conscience cannot be trusted. It is seriously deficient because of your sin nature. I challenge you to study Holy Scripture. I pray that through it, the Holy Spirit will instruct your conscience and bring you to an understanding of how perilous your condition actually is".

A conscience which has fulfilled these duties is a conscience that deserves respect.

Again, the atheist's conscience cannot have fulfilled these duties. It is not deserving of respect. The Pope should not have appealed to it.

[jboot]

Really? The definition of “making it personal” has definitely broadened, then.

[jboot]

Nevertheless, this is the only thread where it is being discussed.

[jboot]

Thanks for your reply. Mea Culpa Ex Cathedra! LOL, I always get that one wrong.

I agree with your points as well. I am going to make an effort to find a transcript of the entire interview. The context of the Pope's statements appears to address the condition of an atheist ("one without faith and no interest in faith"), but I would like to verify that this is the case from an actual transcript. If it is the case, it is troubling, as the uninformed conscience of the atheist cannot possible conform to the Mind of Christ.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you.

That's why I'm hoping this is just the first in a series of letters or lessons.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...the uninformed conscience of the atheist cannot possibly conform to the Mind of Christ."

This is true. And yet --- I think what Pope Francis is saying, is "Come toward the Light." You'll notice that Christ is there, in the beginning, the middle, and the end of his letter. And anyone who is coming toward the Light is coming toward Christ.

So this isn't so much a fully-orbed, totally adequate, systematic instruction, as it is an invitation.

It's all predicated on this Antonio Scalfari, supposedly an atheist, having nevertheless said he is fascinated by the person of Jesus in the Gospels. "Francesco" is saying, "So, He fascinates you? Good. Come and see."

[Campion]

After Francis I's "who am I to judge" comments back in July I assumed that he was simply misunderstood. Those comments were also Ex Cathedra.

None the various comments the Pope has made on these topics are anywhere near qualifying as ex cathedra statements.

[armydoc]

None the various comments the Pope has made on these topics are anywhere near qualifying as ex cathedra statements.

If one is to believe the teachings of V2, a faithful catholic must submit to all papal teachings regardless of ex cathedra status:

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him. (Lumen Gentium 25)

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

(I’m pinging a whole bunch of you, but my response isn’t necessarily directed at one of you in particular.)

First of all, let’s put to death this pernicious and filthy claim that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ for those who did not hear the Gospel, or that there is salvation for those who were born outside of the Jewish religion before the coming of Christ. Mrs. Don-o, on this thread, and Marshmallow, seem to be of the opinion that if someone does not outright reject Jesus Christ, that they can still be saved by their good-will, whatever that is, and then the ridiculous claim is made that this would still be “through Christ,” though they did not have faith in Christ. This is a horrific and ugly doctrine that all good Christians must stomp beneath their feet; and their doctrine directly contradicts Christ who says that “no man cam cone unto the Father, but by me.” In effect, they seem to agree with the blasphemous position of Pope Francis, while simultaneously claiming it is misunderstood. What difference does it make if the Pope thinks that salvation might elude the worst and most rabid of atheists, but save other ones who, as Mrs. Don-o seems to say, had a good excuse for their unbelief such as the example of bad Catholics? (In which case, the whole world would be saved, as when has there ever been a good example of a Pope?). In either case, they are denying the scripture and are promoting a salvation outside of God’s one true religion.

First of all, the scripture finds all men guilty before God, regardless of how much “light” they have received (Rom 3:19). As all men have received, to a certain extent, the law of God imprinted on their hearts, as well as the light of nature revealing the existence of God, therefore they are summarily rendered “without excuse,” (Rom 1:20, 2:14) and “as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law (Rom 2:12). And again, “for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God”(Rom 3:9-11). For those born before the coming of Christ, “salvation is of the Jews,” and therefore all those who were outside of God’s covenant people are damned; however, now that Christ has come, salvation is again limited to God’s peculiar people whom God has predestinated before the world began.

How can they claim ignorance when they themselves affirm that their lies are evil, that their adulteries are wrong, that their homosexual abominations and other crimes are filthy, that they have fallen short, even though they take pleasure in them? What does it matter to God if they justify and excuse themselves? Isn’t that the nature of all mankind, to justify ourselves and think of ourselves as Holy? What does He care if they sear their conscience to their sins? Is God obligated to save everyone or reason with everyone personally? Is God obligated to appear to every individual, or to save those people who He has not made a covenant with? And how can they have any good works at all, when “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23)? And again, “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6)?

God is not obligated to save everyone. He is obligated only to His own promise, and by nothing else. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth (Rom 9:18). Who are you to challenge God on why He damned all the people in the new world, or people on remote islands? Do you think that God is not the God of providence, who ordained that they should be born in those lands where they would die without ever hearing the hope of the Gospel? But if men are not guilty of anything until they hear the Gospel, or absolutely reject it, isn’t God then obligated to appear to everyone in the same flashy manner as He did to Paul on the road to Damascus? After all, can’t it be argued that everyone deserves the same EQUAL chance for salvation? “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”(Rom 9:20-21).

On the contrary, if God chooses to save any one, it is mercy that He does so. And if God does not save that person, it is in judgment that He does so. If God is obligated to have mercy on all people, then mercy is, in fact, justice, and judgment is injustice.

Come out of these evil errors that the RCC promotes, and surrender wholly to Jesus Christ who is the door by which all men must enter!

[Iscool]

[13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

Your religion always stops at the end of Romans 2 and avoids most every thing in Romans 3 and beyond (where grace has a beginning in Christianity) until it reaches James which you bungle just as well...

First off, justified does not mean saved...Then in Romans 3 we start to learn that people are NOT justified by hearing and doing the law...There was a switcheroo...You have to pay attention to those 'But Now_s'...That means something has changed...

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Your pope should have continued reading...

the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience.

This is your pope LEADING countless numbers of souls to the pit of Hell...

That only applies to people who don't know of God...Those who have heard of God and reject him do so willingly obviously, and do not have a chance at salvation by their good works...

Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action.

More nonsense...An atheist is not allowed by God to determine what is good or evil...An atheist is just as justified as a Christian but he will go to hell regardless of how good an atheist he is...

[Steelfish]

This is a serious misunderstanding of Scriptural quotations when you write “Christ who says that “no man can come unto the Father, but by me.” Citations like this amount to sophomoric quotations of scripture.

“By Me” is to act Christ-like. The Good Samaritan was a non-believer but he did God’s will.

From Mother Theresa of Calcutta:

[On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, “Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.” Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”]

There is but One Truth, One Belief, One Church. The Catholic Church.

The followers of King Henry VIII, the Lutherans, The Episcopalians, and the 35, 000 brands of Protestantism, including the Joel Osteens, Rev. Jeremiahs Wrights, the Rev. Schullers, Rev. Hinns, Bishop TD Jakes, Rev. Jimmy Swaggarts; Rev. David Koreshs; Rev. Jim Jones; etc are the wolves in sheeps clothing leading people astray.

Pope Francis was referring to agnostics and atheists who “act” like the Good Samaritan and may enter heaven through the mercy of a loving Christ.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“This is a serious misunderstanding of Scriptural quotations when you write “Christ who says that “no man can come unto the Father, but by me.” Citations like this amount to sophomoric quotations of scripture.”

---

Based on what? Your quote of Mother Theresa? You didn’t even attempt to defend your position, and just spouted something silly. What do you think it means “whoever does not believe in me is condemned already.” Is “believe” another word for “be a righteous Atheist even though the Bible calls you damned and destined to hellfire?” What do you want me to do with this? All I have to say “No it’s not.” It’s not like you offered anything to counter what I said. Come back to me when you can work out a rational response. Preferably something with supporting facts, arguments and a logical framework. Don’t bug me with these ridiculous assertions.

[Arthur McGowan]

I have long held that the word “conscience” should never have been invented. It has stubbornly led to false reification—i.e., Jiminy Cricket, the little angel on your shoulder, etc.

Seriously, even in rational psychology and moral theology, conscience is nothing but another name for the intellect.

Of course, the dissenters from Humanae Vitae did nothing but emit clouds of toxic smoke on the subject. “Conscience” is what you want to do rather than what the Pope says.

Without the word “conscience” mucking things up, the dissenters would have had nothing to say except: “We disagree with the Pope; we urge our fellow Catholics to disagree with the Pope.” Rather than: We disagree with the Pope—except that WITH THE POPE we teach that all Catholics must follow their conscience.

[Steelfish]

Mother Theresa quotes the Christ. St. Francis of Assisi bore the stigmata of Christ. You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “believe in me” nor are you willing to accept what Christ Himself meant by “believe in me” as told in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

There are a number of atheists who for a variety of reasons are unschooled in the truth, are illiterate, are put off by 35,000 brands of Christian hypocrisy: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outwardly, but within are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

Belief is first and foremost a true belief in One truth, One Church and what it teaches in the name of the Christ a single truth. “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

This was ONE teaching (even before the New Testament was written down some 60 years after the death of Christ) given to Peter and his successors right down to Pope Francis. The curse of the Reformation was the evil of the world that gave us every brand of Christianity from Joel Osteen’s “prosperity gospel” to Bishop TD Jakes; gospel twerking. And why not a quote from Mother Theresa who lived the life of the Good Samaritan. By their works you shall know them. No?

Quoting Scriptural passages superficially in contrast to what Pope Benedict XVI (called the theological Einstein of our times) has written is pure sophomoric Oprah-like nonsense. Put another way, this is the stuff of your corner street FourSquare Church Pastor who revels in Easter Sunrise services at your local beach. Feel-good Christian-lite. I’ll take the atheist who cradles the wounded child to safety or puts himself in front of incoming fire to save another’s life, rather than “believe in me” Joel Osteens!