Religion & Law

I understand (but do not agree with) Father Araujo's apparent position that Catholics are required to follow Church teachings regardless of their subjective conscience.

I am still not sure whether he thinks the quality of the formation of one's conscience has anything to do with the question whether legal protection should be afforded to it. So, if a Native American sincerely believes that peyote must be ingested as a part of a religious ceremony, I am inclined to support protection wholly without regard to the theological sagacity of the position. I think that is the message of Vatican II. Leaving aside cases where the government has a compelling state interest, this means, of course, that Vatican II honors subjective conscience (not objective conscience) when the government seeks to force a person to act against his or her conscience. Father Araujo's last post seemed to suggest that the question of whether a conscience was or was not well formed had something to do with the question whether the civil law could impose upon religious freedom. Perhaps I misread the answer to Rob's question on this and, if so, I apologize.