Yuyutsu, you said "others get to feel guilty for less noble causes (a common example in contemporary western society is to feel guilty out of failure in sexual conquests)". Yes, they feel guilt, precisely because they are not consulting or exercising their consciences. Instead, they are listening to society, allowing themselves to be indoctrinated by social expectations, falling prey to insecurities. Conscience, when nurtured and exercised, counters such things and allows people to 'go against the flow'. A person of sound conscience will not evaluate another person or themselves by their sexual activity. You yourself have said that these people might be listening to a voice of society or of men. They are listening to others, not to their consciences. You said it yourself.

Well Mishka, I wasn't discussing death camps, but something as
simple as masturbation, to test your theory of conscience being
a guide.

Given that the topic is freely discussed in today's society and
is openly discussed on Wikipedia, I see no reason not to discuss
it on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation

It seems that the Catholic Church views masturbation as a "grave
moral disorder" and a sin. I recall too, a Jewish friend telling
me of many a jewish boy rubbing their genitals against the sheets,
as the Talmud considers it evil and it was their way of getting around
it.

I know all about the Catholic religion, Mishka. Sadly I was born
a Catholic and those nuns and priests spent years trying to brainwash
me with their religion.

My point here is that conscience is clearly not a good guide to
the rights and wrongs of masturbation, so your
theory is not the best, it seems.

Mishka,

There appears to be some confusion arising, warranting clarification.

Some posts appear to limit or confuse morals/morality as referring only to sexual morality. This must clearly be wrong, and I would suggest that morals/morality refers to all conduct and behaviour, conscious and unconscious. Murder is immoral, as is rape, abuse and violence without justification, dishonesty, unethical behaviour, graft, lying about something important, etc. We may and do differentiate degree - for example whether venial or capital - but all are degrees of morality or immorality, in my view.

We have ethics, morals, virtue, integrity, honesty - and maybe some more. To me these all collectively represent morality, and concurrently the exercise (or disregard) of conscience. Certainly 'normal' behaviour includes such ordinary activities as laying out a dinner table or doing the dishes, but also conveying an opinion or instructing a child - but in all instances there is not just conformity (or otherwise) with an accepted 'code' but also an underlying conformity (or lack thereof) with morality in relation to the attitude, honesty, integrity, empathy, compassion, and the spirit in which these activities are conducted - and conscience as well as consciousness provide the underlying guidance.

Someone has suggested that conscience and morality are separate functions of the human psyche. I don't see how this is possible. To my mind morality and conscience are inextricably intertwined, evolving with experience and with learning.

Mishka, I think you undervalue the impact of erroneous early instruction and of indoctrination. It is these and some other environmental influences which result in prejudice and bigotry, and in various levels of Amoral conduct. Of course prejudice and bigotry also usually involve self-interest, greed, pride and envy, as well as idiocy and a lack of ethics and integrity. Conscience and morality contaminated, distorted, dulled or rendered inoperative.

Yabby, did you ever consider that it may have been the environment and/or methodology rather than the content of your early experience of Catholicism with which you logically take greatest exception?

Saltpetre, thanks for your observations. There does, indeed, seem to be an uncommon emphasis on sexual morality. Both morality and conscience should have everyday application, and I consider it a great shame that they don’t. I believe that if they did, there would be less indoctrination and adverse influence.

Yabby, I’m sorry you’ve had such a bad experience of the Catholic Church. My experience has been vastly different. If I had to criticise the priests in my diocese for anything it’d be that they’ve failed to instruct the laity in the teachings of the Church and that they put so much emphasis on God’s love that they forget to teach any sort of morality.

My point was that an individual’s conscience should be respected and that the Church does so even when it considers a person’s conscience to be over-scrupulous or ill-informed. I don’t think conscience is in any way deficient on the topic of masturbation. You have clearly decided it is so because you have a different moral perception, but conscience is individual. In a diverse society, you cannot expect everyone to agree on everything. Conscience is what has allowed you to decide that the Church is wrong on this topic – either that or you’ve been indoctrinated by someone or something else! Without conscience, you wouldn’t have an opinion you could honestly call your own. I may consult my conscience and disagree with you, but both consciences are in working order. The difference in conclusions between people can be because of a lack of input just as much as it might be due to defective reasoning. It’s difficult, after all, to make any sort of decision without balanced information.

I also think you misunderstand sin – just because someone does something wrong doesn’t make them guilty. The Church is very clear on this; sin requires knowledge/intent and free will. The child you described would not fulfil these requirements.

P.S. There are plenty of things freely discussed in society nowadays that I think best left unsaid. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but that’s how I feel.

Salpetre, I feel great empathy for the many victims of the Catholic
Church. I quoted you a URL earlier in this thread, did you get time
to read it?

Have you ever bothered to read about its history? It used to burn
heretics like me. Corruption was order of the day and the sex lives
of past popes is quite entertaining.

This same organisation takes 5 year old kiddies who foolishly trust
adults,and brainwashes them with all sorts of hocus pocus, claiming
it to be the one and only truth. Yet they don't have a single piece
of substantiated evidence for their claims.

The world is full of Catholics with all sorts of hangups about sex
and sexuality. They are unable to see it as normal and natural,
for they were brainwashed from a young age to feel guilt. Then
they have a guilty conscience about the rubbish that they were taught.

Religion should be a lifestyle choice, like golf. Let the pope
preach to his flock, but when the Catholic Church tries to force
the rest of us to live by their codswallop, people like me will
protest loudly and expose them for what they really are. A bunch
of snakeoil salesmen with absolutaly no conscience about the damage
that they do to the lives of individuals along the way.

Luckily in the first world we are fortunate enough, to most of the time,
be able to tell them to get stuffed. Many in the third world,
as the Time article showed, are not so fortunate.

Thanks, Yabby,

I must admit I do abhor all forms of religious extremism, and I guess the Catholic Church's official views do fall into this category in some instances, including on masturbation and birth control, so it would seem from the Wikipedia link and other clear evidence, including from your Time article link. I guess I was already aware of this, but failed to recognise the full scope of the potential ramifications. This particular deficiency is of course not limited to Catholicism. The Phillipines example also reinforces the necessity for due separation of church and state.

I feel an overriding parameter for all religions ought to be 'do no harm'.

As you have said, it is fortunate for us that we can pick and choose or ignore, without fear of repercussions, where many others have little or no choice. It is sad indeed that so many aspects of religious teaching and practice have seen necessary to go many steps too far, and have staunchly retained what could only be viewed as divisive and out of step. My view is that the purpose of religion should be to develop and strengthen the 'conscience' muscle, but not to get too involved in people's daily lives.

I guess the following extract from Wik more or less says it all: "The Catholic view of masturbation has been consistent for all of the Catholic Church's 2,000-year history." It would seem that such reluctance to take a more contemporary world view is also not limited to this particular issue.

It would appear that many religions have unfortunately found it necessary to go to some extremes to maintain relevance (and control), leading to some strange interpretations of what it means to nurture and give succour to its flock, and have in many cases retained some of these extremes. Would it were not so, and that there may be a real hope for an adoption of the universality of humankind under an umbrella of universal civil and human rights.