Conscience - Aboriginal Vicar of Christ

[Magnanimity]

These are some terrific responses here. Thank you all!

More likely they “seem wrong “ at the level of the heart and libido, not the conscience.

Regarding libido, this presumably falls within various human “appetites.” Appetites are inalienable–as in, we’ll crave food, drink, sex and that’s just how humans are. But, regarding the “heart,” this might get us into interesting territory. Today, when we speak of the heart, we generally are talking about the emotions. But, our Tradition has more complete ways of speaking about it–to regard the heart as the spiritual center–that part of you that desires connection with other people and with transcendentals like truth, goodness and beauty. In this more ancient sense, the heart would be intrinsically related to the conscience, correct? So, it would help to inform the conscience, naturally. You think?

Because of course, our conscience can be wrong.

Not that I disagree with you, but isn’t it fascinating to read in CCC 1790 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” There are many groups and institutions that will vie for our assent/participation throughout our lives. We can align ourselves with them and also withdraw later. But, doesn’t it seem self-evident that withdrawing from conscience is not possible? We cannot escape our internal sense of the good, can we? Do you think this is what underlies CCC 1790? It’s such a strong affirmation of conscience’s role that it is suggestive of conscience holding a place of inalienable primacy for ourselves.

all the definitions I have seen are either definitions based on other immaterial things like ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ and ‘god(s)’

All of these terms smack of the pulpit, don’t they? But, it isn’t obvious to me that we need to commit ourselves to an overarching religiosity to have this discussion. After all, would reason itself or consciousness/introspection commit us to spirit, soul or gods? That doesn’t seem likely. When I’m discussing the conscience here, I’m being descriptive. I’m looking internally at my own behavior, observing the behavior of those around me, and concluding that yeah, just as we have mental faculties that help us to participate in deduction/induction (reason), so too we certainly seem to have an internal sense of ought-ness within us. Humans do not seem to need extensive instruction to be aware that justice is better than injustice, that generosity is what should hold (not stinginess), that bravery is the way to go (and cowardice is to be avoided). Something within us is informing us in all these things. That ‘something’ is presumably what humans have long meant by the “conscience.” Yes?

 

[Magnanimity]

As regards ‘natural law’ as being the prompt for decisions made by our conscience, I think we should be wary of how we define ‘natual law’.

Fair enough. Some writers on this topic (e.g., J. Budziszewski) will use language like, “what we cannot not know” to refer to our connection to “natural law.” Perhaps I’m mistaken, but this internal faculty that connects us to natural law is what is meant by the conscience. The word-choice of “law” may seem too strong. For some folks, that word invokes a sense of infallibility. I don’t think it has to though. “Law” can carry the sense of general norms, the particulars of which we may or may not understand and the natures of which are open to some degree of alteration.

So, to take a concrete example, you mentioned the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth–“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Is this iteration of the moral principle superior to the way that Confucius put it? “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” I don’t know. Some would argue that it is superior because the way that Jesus put it is more positively-stated. As in, Christ wants you to do, not merely to avoid. But, our conscience doesn’t commit us to either version as superior, it would seem. Most would grant either version.

However, where it gets interesting for me is that it seems they would grant the truth of both moral principles because of something more basically and universally known to the conscience. What might that more basic principle be? Idk, but perhaps, it would be something like “one must always behave in a way that respects the dignity of the other.” So, what makes this all mysterious, it seems to me, is that we all will hold to this basic principle. And our consciences is “where” this assent resides. And it’s universal across humanity.

Any act that follows those basic principles feels right to us because we have evolved the characteristics which enabled us to be part of society.

I wouldn’t contest this, but I would push back against anyone attempting to reductively couch the conscience within a framework of mere “survival.” There are simply too many ‘oughts’ that we affirm which do not obviously have any connection to survival. These oughts may have a connection to human flourishing, but not to baseline survival.

 

[Magnanimity]

So, conscience in and of itself is not an indicator of good or evil.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . .” CCC 1776

“Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good” CCC 1777

“It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law” CCC 1778

I don’t generally think it’s helpful to go along catechism-quoting. But, the above smattering I think illustrates that you’ve got something a bit backwards regarding the conscience. One might even say that conscience is, by itself, the most basic and primal indicator of good and evil within humans.

In reality, it is the conscience itself that even allowed you to become (or continue being) Catholic at all. That is to say, you are able to recognize the truth and goodness within Catholicism. In some way, the various truth-claims of the church correspond to that which is internal to yourself. If this weren’t true, then you being a Catholic would be arbitrary. The cause of your Catholic commitments would be ephemeral and completely unknown to you.

On some level, what I’m getting at with conscience here is what Plato was after in the Meno. It should strike all of us (especially the non-believers, I think) as bizarre that we universally have this internal sense about us that guides us in matters of the good, which is not reducible to reason or introspection–this conscience that is the seat of our apprehension of moral, social and wisdom truths.

That is, when the Catholic church affirms something like, “all humans have instrinsic and inalienable dignity in their very person and are therefore worthy of respect, justice and love,” we recognize the truth of that claim. In some way, we already interiorly know that this is the case before we encounter the claim itself.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I meant “heart” as in emotions. If you feel romantic love for someone who isn’t your spouse, you might genuinely care about that person and you tell yourself that love is good and isn’t wrong. Conveniently forgetting that it is indeed wrong in this case because you are committed to your spouse, and assuming it’s not a case of a marriage getting annulled, the most loving thing you can do for the outside person you love is to let them go on their way.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

But, doesn’t it seem self-evident that withdrawing from conscience is not possible? We cannot escape our internal sense of the good, can we?

I wouldn’t say that’s wrong, but I would add to it. What we think of as good can change, i.e. we can learn, develop, and grow in wisdom.

Do you think this is what underlies CCC 1790? It’s such a strong affirmation of conscience’s role that it is suggestive of conscience holding a place of inalienable primacy for ourselves.

I don’t think it’s actually being boiled down that far in CCC 1790. But I also don’t think that your point of view is off in any practical way that it couldn’t be applied to any audience.

I think the Church is caveating the word “judgement” with the word “certain” in CCC 1790. The “certain judgement” referring back to the previous four paragraphs which explain why and how one is to form one’s conscience. This proper formation would lead to a “certain judgement” of conscience that’s to be followed. I don’t believe the paragraph is talking about a ‘bare’ conscience so to speak. But nevertheless, a conscience which isn’t formed well, I would think, would also be included in the gist of paragraph 1790.

Which gets me back to why I wouldn’t say that our not being able to escape our conscience is the reason that the Church holds the conscience to be in a position of authority for ourselves. Rather, I think it may be because “Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis);” CCC 1780

Synderesis can be academically defined, or succinctly put as in CCC 1780. But I find that those definitions miss the apparent point that synderesis is that most core function of our intellect which is made in God’s image. I’ve seen it referred to as the spark of God within every person.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So you have had experience of this ‘little internal voice’. So let’s call it your conscience and go on from there.

So how would you define it and where do you think it comes from?

I can see that during the night and this morning (eastern US time), several others have addressed the issue of “conscience” far better than I could, so I won’t belabor a huge discussion here. However, for a faithful Catholic who “knows better”, I stick to my guns that there is a corpus of teaching called “traditional Catholic moral theology”, and our marching orders are to read it, learn it, “get with the program”, and let this “be our conscience”. We don’t take it, “run it through our conscience” as though “conscience” were some little oracle or genie within us that is the ultimate judge of right and wrong, and say “okay, 98% of this, I’m fine with, but there’s this little 2% that doesn’t pass my test, so where that other 2% is concerned, I’m going to do what I think is right, and the magisterium can go pound sand”. That’s what a large number of Catholics, even otherwise faithful ones, have done in our modern era with the matter of contraception. Is it “conscience” talking, or is it the desire to have an easier life, like they see everyone else in the secular world having? You tell me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Doubtful matters, or matters where different moral theologians have come to different conclusions, I say all right, go with what seems right to you, or better still, follow the safer option of commonly accepted moral teaching unless there is some overarching reason, in the here and now, to go with a less probable (but still legitimate) opinion. Those who do not have the gift of orthodox Catholic faith are, to a lesser or greater extent, like a boat without a rudder, and may come to any conclusions you could imagine. And they would be wrong.

I have wondered, for instance, if the ancient peoples who practiced human sacrifice, tearing out of hearts, ritual cannibalism, and so on, had any inkling that what they were doing was wrong. Did their proto-religions even go so far as to say “you will be displeasing the gods very much if you don’t offer this sacrifice”? These people are all gone and we’ll never know. We don’t have any diaries where a pagan might have written “yes, we offer these sacrifices, but deep down I just don’t feel right about it — it feels like murder”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have wondered, for instance, if the ancient peoples who practiced human sacrifice, tearing out of hearts, ritual cannibalism, and so on, had any inkling that what they were doing was wrong.

It’s not even “ancient peoples”. The Iroquois martyred St. Jean de Brebeuf in the manner you describe. It was considered an honorable death to them. The guy who ripped out his heart and ate it was doing so out of admiration for St. Jean’s bravery. That was in 1649, not ancient history.

I see this sort of thing as akin to those who bought into Nazi principles or any other oppressive regime. They learn to view the infliction of pain and suffering as something different from what it is and that somehow justifies doing it, in their minds. Historically, cultures who practice such practices usually seem to die out or be killed off themselves; they certainly don’t make many friends with their methods.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It’s not even “ancient peoples”. The Iroquois martyred St. Jean de Brebeuf in the manner you describe. It was considered an honorable death to them. The guy who ripped out his heart and ate it was doing so out of admiration for St. Jean’s bravery. That was in 1649, not ancient history.

Run that by me again?

I don’t doubt what you say, but did the Iroquois have the mentality of (something like) “this guy has come along and tried to convert us to this bad religion that we don’t like, and we kill when something like that happens — but daggone it, he was pretty brave, you must admit, and when we kill him, at least he’ll die with honor”?

That’s pretty twisted.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s what I have read. It’s how they typically treated male captives.
Warriors were expected to be brave in the face of torture being inflicted.
Apparently St. Jean passed their test. They respected that, hence the heart-eating.

 

[GLam1761]

My thot about conscience is that it is and should be
a GROUP Conscience, so that we KNOW instinctively
what is right or wrong and judge by that measurement!!
What the SOCIETY thinks is right or wrong, even as
referred to(cannibalism, torture) is actually Group Cons-
cience and the Teachings of the CCC also is a kind of
Formed Group Conscience which helps UNITE us as
the ppl of God and Children of Mother Church w/
Bishops and Priests as guardians and under-shepherds!!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Teachings of the CCC also is a kind of
Formed Group Conscience which helps UNITE us as
the ppl of God and Children of Mother Church w/
Bishops and Priests as guardians and under-shepherds!!

It’s certainly helpful in cases where the “group conscience” of the society one lives in has gone off the rails. Extreme example again being Nazi Germany, but there are aspects of a group conscience going off the rails in many more moderate countries too.

 

[GLam1761]

Yes, every good thing has a tendency to be turned into
something very bad!!

 

[fhansen]

It seems to me that the more we think about conscience, the more primary and basic we must acknowledge it to be–to all humans.

What do you think?

I think the conscience can be deeply covered up and overridden. The Church teaches that, with the Fall, man was in some manner cut off from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and within his own self; disharmony became the new norm. So while we’re obligated to do the best we can with what we know, we’re also obligated to keep seeking the truth further, to question many of our motivations, to desire a properly formed conscience, to not necessarily trust our every impulse, and to employ the faculty of reason to help out in the process. It can be the desire of the moment, rather than the conscience, that is speaking the loudest in us-and we’re filled with a variety of different and sometimes competing desires and appetites, etc.

A related question, that arises directly from consideration of modern mores on sexuality because those mores contribute heavily to other, not so readily visible repercussions and actions taken by people: is it really right and natural to extricate/remove/surgically rip a living human fetus from a mother’s womb? Is that a behavior where choices wrought by an innocent conscience should lead?

 

[GLam1761]

I think the conscience can be deeply covered up and overridden. The Church teaches that, with the Fall, man was in some manner cut off from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and within his own self; disharmony became the new norm. So while we’re obligated to do the best we can with what we know, we’re also obligated to keep seeking the truth further, to question many of our motivations, to desire a properly formed conscience, to not necessarily trust our every impulse, and to employ the faculty of reason to help out in the process. It can be the desire of the moment, rather than the conscience, that is speaking the loudest in us-and we’re filled with a variety of different and sometimes competing desires and appetites, etc.

You hit the nail on the head!! The Doctrines and Teachings of the Church SHOULD override any
conscience anyone has!!

 

[goout]

To talk about ‘conscience’ we first have to define it. And all the definitions I have seen are either definitions based on other immaterial things like ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ and ‘god(s)’ or are so un-concrete as to preclude a rational debate. Observations of humans also suggests that there is absolutely no action, however immoral we, or another regroup, might consider it to be that has not been done by one of us humans in ‘goof conscience’.

Would anyone like to help a non-believer understand this thread by coming up with a definition based on observation of the real (material) world?

You’ve observed human beings wrestle with difficult decisions, right? Although not materially testable, that process points to “conscience” in operation.

 

[fhansen]

You hit the nail on the head!! The Doctrines and Teachings of the Church SHOULD override any
conscience anyone has!!

Yes, but even that’s a matter of the conscience- to make a determination on. In the end the Church teaches that we must be true to the dictates of our conscience, to what we think is right, while still obligated to keep seeking for truth and righteousness.

It should become obvious to us that humans can think they’re right while being wrong, but that we still can’t believe something until we come to authentically believe it for ourselves. Believing the Church to be right about matters of faith and morals can require time, a process of coming to understand the reasons why some things are right and others wrong, a process of coming to trust and agree with her. There are lot and lots of voices out there, all vying for our attention.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It’s what I have read. It’s how they typically treated male captives.
Warriors were expected to be brave in the face of torture being inflicted.
Apparently St. Jean passed their test. They respected that, hence the heart-eating.

OK, I can get my head around that. It would be entirely possible to respect one’s vanquished and killed enemy as having been brave and honorable.

On a slightly different note, I’m reminded of TV talk show host Bill Maher commenting after the events of 9/11 that whatever else the hijackers were (assuming that one accepts the commonly held story, and I am not going to open that can of worms here), they were not cowards. Well, he’s right. No, they were not cowards. Cowards do not freely choose death in carrying out their mission. They (or their handlers) found a way to inflict massive casualties and damage on what they perceived to be the “enemy”. I would stop short of “respecting” them, but I do have to concede that they exhibited a type of courage, misguided though it was. I do not particularly like having to concede that, but it’s the truth.

Again, “assuming that one accepts the commonly held story”… the day it happened, those passports, supposedly belonging to the hijackers, just popped out of nowhere a little too conveniently… but I promised not to open that can of worms…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think the conscience can be deeply covered up and overridden. The Church teaches that, with the Fall, man was in some manner cut off from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and within his own self; disharmony became the new norm. So while we’re obligated to do the best we can with what we know, we’re also obligated to keep seeking the truth further, to question many of our motivations, to desire a properly formed conscience, to not necessarily trust our every impulse, and to employ the faculty of reason to help out in the process. It can be the desire of the moment, rather than the conscience, that is speaking the loudest in us-and we’re filled with a variety of different and sometimes competing desires and appetites, etc.

Should, and do.

When a faithful Catholic encounters a conflict between what they believe “from inside of them”, and what the Church teaches, you forget about what you think or believe, and get on board with the Church. St Ignatius Loyola said as much. Full stop.

 

[fhansen]

Should , and do .

When a faithful Catholic encounters a conflict between what they believe “from inside of them”, and what the Church teaches, you forget about what you think or believe, and get on board with the Church. St Ignatius Loyola said as much. Full stop.

We must be personally convinced the Church is right-and that we are probably wrong or ignorant, giving her the benefit of the doubt. But why would anyone necessarily do even that; why would anyone necessarily listen to the Church over any other competing source, unless they first of all decide for themselves that the Church is right?