Interesting. So here the Roman Catholic is to trust his conscience, but the Protestant who believes in Jesus Christ is not to trust in or rely on his conscience.
Now, now.
We are expected to show proper respect for the
INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE AND DOGMA OF HOLY DUPLICITY
/s
Further, on this topic, I try to add to the line anyone who is mentioned or should in my opinion read my reply. If I am not responding to a post that has my name in the beginning of the list, it means that I do not see enough substance in the post to which to respond, or I somehow missed it, or I on some gross level agree with it. I often skip without response posts that are addressed to me among others, but not firstly to me. At times someone asks me not to write to him; I will honor that request and will not initiate a post to him, but I will not pick his name out of ping lists responding to others, and I will consider the request moot if he posts to me.
This is just a restatement of my habits, no one did anything wrong, and I don't think I did.
Now to the substance of this very good question about the process of reconciliation.
here the Roman Catholic is to trust his conscience, but the Protestant who believes in Jesus Christ is not to trust in or rely on his conscience.
Since we, Catholics and Protestants, have the same human nature, we should trust our conscience to the same rational degree, and not absolutely. We should consider a possibility of a mistake: we should listen to inputs from others and seek proof that our conscience is giving us valid advice.
On matters of faith, we should not simply arrive at a particular conclusion and never test it again. We should on these matters behave with the same rationality as in any other human activity: operating machinery, fixing a dinner or teaching a child. If a saltbox contains substance that does not look like salt, we test it before using it in the soup.
A Catholic has an obligation of obedience that is in addition to the above, but that does not replace the above. If a Catholic forms an opinion that is contrary to his faith as he knows it to be (for example, forms an opinion that women should be able to be ordained priests), his additional obligation is to actively seek deeper understanding by studying what the Church teaches on the matter. So now it is not like cooking soup: I am at liberty to decide what I like in my soup, but I am not at liberty to decide that woman ordination is OK and leave it at that. I have to master the theology of the roles of the sexes and the nature of Christ and priesthood before I gain a right to contend for female ordination. Further, should my opinion become hardened rather than tentative, I should leave the Catholic Church completely, and present that opinion as solely my own.
Something similar may apply to Protestants. For one thing, Protestantism is big on the rule of scripture, and this is why I as Catholic never tire of pointing out that major Protestant tenets of faith, those that started the so-called Reformation, are flatly contradicted by scripture. This should bother our Protestant brethrens' conscience, and their lively participation in open Catholic threads is a testimony to that.
In summary, conscience is a subjective matter that needs to be open to the witness of others, and especially the historical witness of the Church, in order to be taken as valid.
Let us turn to how this philosophy applies to the process of sacramental reconciliation.
A Catholic is required to examine his conscience before going to confession. Further, he is required to go to confession at least once if not twice a year. The flock is urged to confess in Advent, in Lent and any time a self-evident sin (e.g. a crime or a sexual sin) is committed; confession is recommended even if the faithful is in doubt whether he has sinned at all. From this it is clear that examination of conscience has to be thourough, and that is has to be done even if no conscience of sin presently exists in the faithful.
The examination of conscience is not a formal process, although it is not hard to find a checklist or some other method to follow. The Ten Commandments is such checklist. The list of cardinal or deadly sins approaches the same task looking not at categories of sinful acts like the Decalogue does, but rather at the mental disposition that causes sins: Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Lust, Avarice, Gluttony. Your priest will be glad to assist either with informal advice or even during the sacramental confession itself.
Circumstances outside of the individual's conscience also need to be considered. A soldier, for example, needs to examine the tactical situation as well as his mental state when reflecting on hostile acts he has done.
So what happens if despite all this rigorous examination, a sin goes unrecognized and therefore unconfessed?
Then there is nothing to confess. A sin is a decision made consciously. A child, or an unconscious person cannot sin, even if the act itself is an offense to God. One who has examined his conscience honestly and thouroughly, sought advice from his spiritual director (your priest, normally), and found no sin, has not sinned. An example of that is material sins committed before conversion to the Catholic Church. My formerly Protestant wife, for example, asked if she should confess the anti-Catholic opinions she once held. The answer is no, so long as they were what she was taught by credible teachers in the Protestant environment. Anger, dishonesty, lack of serious attention to the Scripture when attacking the Church might be sinful, but growing up in an environment that is not Catholic, or even not Christian, is not in itself a sin; it is a form of innocent ignorance that excuses material sin.
Another example is when non-Catholics enter into an invalid marriage, such as a marriage following a divorce that has not been annuled. Let's say one of them then converts: should she go to confession for living in sin? The answer is no, -- while the marriage was invalid in the eye of God and carnal relations that occur in its context should cease till and if the marriage is properly consecrated, the carnal relations done prior to the conversion are done with a sincerely held at the time presumption of marriage.
To conclude, the only difference between examination of conscience as pertains to confession, and examination of conscience as pertains to theological disputes is that sin has this subjective element of free will, and theology is a science as objective as any other science.