This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I was referring to when I posted about self declared experts in Catholic teaching not knowing what they don't know. If you read all of Gaudium et Specs and the related writings you will find that cardinal Ratzinger was not referring to a conscience that is of itself a source of moral teaching, but rather a properly formed conscience.
Pope Benedict XVI in specific and the Church have spoken and written extensively on the responsibility of the individual to properly for their conscience and the Church's obligation to facilitate the formation of both faith and conscience.
Here is one of the more enlightening sections from Gaudium et Specs on conscience:
"16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."
I encourage you to take the opportunity of a New Year to pursue the whole truth. Peace be with you
Sure. Everything said about Catholics or by Catholics or the Catholic church needs to be *properly interpreted*. Nothing can ever be taken at face value. It never means what it says, it always means what the Catholic church says it means.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that I have ever read or seen posted about Catholicism by non-Catholics has ever been exempted from that charge, that it is not properly *interpreted*.
And of course, only the Catholic church is capable of interpreting it properly, although, honestly I can’t see how someone could place their trust in the accuracy interpretation by someone who couldn’t even state something clearly enough in the first place so that it didn’t NEED an interpretation.
So tell me, how do we interpret the interpretation and make sure that the interpretation of the interpretation is correct? Does someone then need to interpret that as well?
And so it goes.
Turtles all the way down.