"Conscience" in liberal non-Catholic churches?

[HomeschoolDad]

Much is made, among adherents of more liberal religions, of “following one’s conscience”, as opposed to obeying an orthodox creed and making it one’s own. I deliberately phrase it this way, because it is not confined simply to Christians — Unitarian Universalists are like this, and whether they are “Christians” or not, depends upon the individual UU, some regard themselves as Christians, some don’t. I have in mind various liberal Protestant churches (Anglicans et al), as well as, sadly, some of the more liberal Catholics. You will hear, time and again, “the conscience is supreme, we cannot read hearts, not to judge”.

But how would this work if an adherent were convinced “in conscience” that, for instance, racism is morally acceptable — that whites and blacks were never intended to live together, that they shouldn’t marry each other, or even that one race is superior to the other? Or if they thought that capital punishment was a good thing? Or if they advocated keeping women out of traditionally “male” fields? The list could go on. (Please note that I am absolutely NOT advocating these stances — I am just recognizing that, conceivably, a person could conscientiously embrace them. There are many white people who think that it goes against nature, and against nature’s God, for the races to intermarry. Again, I don’t say this, but many do.)

It seems to me, that if you’re going to be consistent about invoking “individual conscience”, it has to cut both ways — it can’t be “freedom of conscience if you come to liberal conclusions, but no freedom of conscience if you come to more conservative, politically incorrect conclusions”. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

What part of this am I missing?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I suppose they’d argue that ones conscience can be malformed, but you’re right, at that point they’d have to admit there is some standard against which we should judge individual consciences.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

It seems to me, that if you’re going to be consistent about invoking “individual conscience”, it has to cut both ways — it can’t be “freedom of conscience if you come to liberal conclusions, but no freedom of conscience if you come to more conservative, politically incorrect conclusions”. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

What part of this am I missing?

I think they don’t use “conscience alone” when making those decisions. The first thing is that they’re not consistent. They don’t have a moral standard to look towards, so they will always shift from one authority to another. They basically want to do things, for their own reasons. Then they use conscience to justify it. But when someone else, as you said, does something they don’t like - also citing conscience, they’ll talk about sociological studies, or science or the majority vote or feelings or they’ll just try to come up with their own logic. But what is it? Logic or conscience?
It’s an unjust scenario. The other thing is that they really don’t think about matters that deeply. They want something and will use whatever means they can to get it.
“Conscience” to them does not mean “what God wants”, but rather “do I feel good?”
They “don’t feel good” about traditional masculine roles, so that can be opposed.
But what about the conscience of those who believe differently? At that moment, they will claim that conscience is not the highest authority.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I suppose they’d argue that ones conscience can be malformed, but you’re right, at that point they’d have to admit there is some standard against which we should judge individual consciences.

I think they don’t use “conscience alone” when making those decisions. The first thing is that they’re not consistent. They don’t have a moral standard to look towards, so they will always shift from one authority to another. They basically want to do things, for their own reasons. Then they use conscience to justify it. But when someone else, as you said, does something they don’t like - also citing conscience, they’ll talk about sociological studies, or science or the majority vote or feelings or they’ll just try to come up with their own logic. But what is it? Logic or conscience?
It’s an unjust scenario. The other thing is that they really don’t think about matters that deeply. They want something and will use whatever means they can to get it.
“Conscience” to them does not mean “what God wants”, but rather “do I feel good?”
They “don’t feel good” about traditional masculine roles, so that can be opposed.
But what about the conscience of those who believe differently? At that moment, they will claim that conscience is not the highest authority.

Both of you echo my point exactly.

Once upon a time, just to prove such a point, I demonstrated to the professor in a graduate seminar that some people regard racial segregation as a moral imperative — they think it was a good thing. They think that Jim Crow segregation, and “separate but equal”, were good, and that integration is bad. I pointed out to him that I was just as opposed to racism and racial segregation as he was — and I was (and I still am) — but what about people who see the matter differently?

Boy oh boy! You talk about stuff hitting the fan! He went ballistic. He absolutely incinerated me!

He never did like me after that.

some standard against which we should judge individual consciences

I wish I could like your post about twenty times.

I’d like to see these words etched above the doorway to every confessional on the face of the earth. Frequent discussion from the pulpit would be nice too.

 

[OddBird]

The Reformed church I currently belong to is fairly liberal.

how would this work if an adherent were convinced “in conscience” that, for instance, racism is morally acceptable

they’d have to admit there is some standard against which we should judge individual consciences.

In most Protestant traditions, that standard generally is Scripture. This is why my fairly liberal church, which has women ministers like myself, does not bless same-sex unions, for example. Other fairly liberal churches in the area do, but in order to do that they had to sell an interpretation of Scripture that wasn’t against it (yeah, it didn’t fly so well; one neighboring state church almost split over that, and a significant portion of its members left for evangelical congregations or the Catholic Church).

It would be interesting to define what is meant by conscience. I remember an ethics class at the Reformed seminary where the professor pointed out that for Luther, conscience wasn’t just moral conscience – an inner instance helping to distinguish between right or wrong – but a kind of external reference, a bit like a place where an individual and God’s will meet, that fundamentally de-centered the individual from themselves. Conscience defined in this way would have its “built-in” external standard against which our individual choices are judged.

 

[Dovekin]

Much is made, among adherents of more liberal religions, of “following one’s conscience”, as opposed to obeying an orthodox creed and making it one’s own.

How do you choose to obey an orthodox creed? Or make it “one’s own”?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The other thing is that they really don’t think about matters that deeply. They want something and will use whatever means they can to get it.
“Conscience” to them does not mean “what God wants”, but rather “do I feel good?”

That is why many of the people in the Catholic Church, who invoke “conscience” when dissenting from difficult, unpopular moral teachings, are either unwittingly or wittingly being disingenuous. It’s not “conscience”. There is no “fearless and searching moral inventory” (as the AA 12-step program puts it) of looking at one’s life and resolving to do the right thing “no matter what”, which to my mind would be “conscience”. It is merely “I want to do X, and regardless of what the Church says, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing X”. That’s not conscience — that’s ignoring the Church and taking one’s own wishes, and the moral consensus of the larger society, as one’s “magisterium”. Very, very self-serving. Do people ever allow their “consciences” to force themselves to do something they absolutely abhor, because “conscience dictates it”? I’m sure it happens, but it’s not nearly as common, as using “conscience” to seek justification for doing what one wants to do in the first place.

(And no, I’ve never been in AA, never had any reason to, I rarely ever even take a drink. I do admire them for trying to help people in my life, including a loved one whom they couldn’t help, despite their best efforts.)

I remember an ethics class at the Reformed seminary where the professor pointed out that for Luther, conscience wasn’t just moral conscience – an inner instance helping to distinguish between right or wrong – but a kind of external reference, a bit like a place where an individual and God’s will meet, that fundamentally de-centered the individual from themselves. Conscience defined in this way would have its “built-in” external standard against which our individual choices are judged.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Luther wasn’t wrong about everything.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Much is made, among adherents of more liberal religions, of “following one’s conscience”, as opposed to obeying an orthodox creed and making it one’s own.

How do you choose to obey an orthodox creed? Or make it “one’s own”?

You put the teachings of the Church above your own judgment, and accept them without reserve. Faithful, orthodox Catholics don’t have to eat themselves alive, pondering moral dilemmas with no norms to lead them towards the right decision. Very simple and very liberating.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You put the teachings of the Church above your own judgment, and accept them without reserve.

I don’t think I could do this, personally. If the Church mandated that I do something that I felt, deeply in my gut, was wrong, I think I’d ignore the Church on that issue.

 

[Jbrady]

You put the teachings of the Church above your own judgment, and accept them without reserve. Faithful, orthodox Catholics don’t have to eat themselves alive, pondering moral dilemmas with no norms to lead them towards the right decision. Very simple and very liberating.

Sounds like a cult, rather than the Catholicism I believe in. Cults are attractive precisely because they “liberate” their members of the burden of thinking for themselves.

A real religion, on the other hand, provokes and facilitate deep reflection and effective decision making in the face of conflict and crisis.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

You put the teachings of the Church above your own judgment, and accept them without reserve.

I don’t think I could do this, personally. If the Church mandated that I do something that I felt, deeply in my gut, was wrong, I think I’d ignore the Church on that issue.

Well, I wouldn’t. Case in point, I have had considerable difficulty accepting as certainly valid the new rites of ordination of priests, as well as consecration of bishops. Yet I submit joyfully and let the Church’s word and faith be my “conscience” in this matter, and in all matters. Tattoos would be another example. My gut instinct is to reject them as a desecration of the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Yet the Church does not reject them, therefore, neither do I.

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.” ― St. Ignatius of Loyola

 

[EndTimes]

But how would this work if an adherent were convinced “in conscience” that, for instance, racism is morally acceptable — that whites and blacks were never intended to live together, that they shouldn’t marry each other, or even that one race is superior to the other?

That’s a What If?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

You put the teachings of the Church above your own judgment, and accept them without reserve. Faithful, orthodox Catholics don’t have to eat themselves alive, pondering moral dilemmas with no norms to lead them towards the right decision. Very simple and very liberating.

Sounds like a cult, rather than the Catholicism I believe in. Cults are attractive precisely because they “liberate” their members of the burden of thinking for themselves.

A real religion, on the other hand, provokes and facilitate deep reflection and effective decision making in the face of conflict and crisis.

So are you saying that you don’t start out with the prima facie assumption that the Church’s teachings are correct in all things?

HomeschoolDad:

But how would this work if an adherent were convinced “in conscience” that, for instance, racism is morally acceptable — that whites and blacks were never intended to live together, that they shouldn’t marry each other, or even that one race is superior to the other?

That’s a What If?

Not clear what you are getting at here. I have known people who just cannot accept interracial marriage or bringing forth of mixed children. Their consciences told them that it’s just not right, God didn’t intend it — even though people of all races are capable of reproducing interracially.

 

[EndTimes]

Their consciences told them that it’s just not right, God didn’t intend it — even though people of all races are capable of reproducing interracially.

Knowing what people do - is not an argument for what they do…

Temptations to Sin do come from the outside.

 

[Jbrady]

So are you saying that you don’t start out with the prima facie assumption that the Church’s teachings are correct in all things?

Heck, no. I don’t do Kool-Aid. Everything I believe I believe because I have dedicated a great deal of time and effort thinking over.

I take personal responsibility for all my beliefs and decisions. I don’t consider Catholicism or any religion to be a way of avoiding personal responsibility, as many seem to do.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

So are you saying that you don’t start out with the prima facie assumption that the Church’s teachings are correct in all things?

Heck, no. I don’t do Kool-Aid. Everything I believe I believe because I have dedicated a great deal of time and effort thinking over.

I take personal responsibility for all my beliefs and decisions. I don’t consider Catholicism or any religion to be a way of avoiding personal responsibility, as many seem to do.

Well, then, that is not something we are ever going to agree on.

I accept everything the Church teaches, regardless. I don’t run it through a "filter called ‘me’ " to determine what I will accept, and what I won’t.

 

[Jbrady]

Well, then, that is not something we are ever going to agree on.

No, we’re not.

 

[Dovekin]

I accept everything the Church teaches, regardless. I don’t run it through a "filter called ‘me’ " to determine what I will accept, and what I won’t.

Do you accept that the Ordinary Form of the Mass Is really the ordinary form and the Extraordinary Form is for situations that are outside of the ordinary?

Do you accept the primacy of conscience as the Church teaches it? Or do you propose a heteronomous conscience subject to some external norms that someone else defines?

You often do the exact opposite of what you claim here. You are doing it right here by suggesting conscience is not what you use to decide what the Church teaches. What does the Church teach on Conscience? Do you accept it? On what basis do you accept it?

 

[Magnanimity]

What does the Church teach on Conscience? Do you accept it? On what basis do you accept it?

It’s a fair point and rather mysterious when you ponder it deeply.

“His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” -GS 16; CCC 1776

“ Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ , a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.” -Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (italicized portion quoted in CCC 1778)

“Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” Newman, Letter

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. CCC 1790

How does an individual Catholic know that what the church teaches is likely correct? Well, in point of fact, the teachings need to (in some way) correspond to what I already know to be true and good. When Christ articulated the Golden Rule, I recognize the truth of it. That is to say, it corresponds to how I already believe humans should behave toward each other, even if my apprehension of this is foggy and latent.

Many centuries ago in Ancient Greece, Plato argued through the voice of Socrates that, say, a society should render to each person what is due to her. And, we accept this truth. We accept justice as being the overriding maxim governing organized human societies. But, how and why do we accept it? Plato says that you recognize the truth of it. You already have a sense of it within you. Catholics can say that this is so bc God is constantly speaking to humans in their deepest core (the conscience). So, one never really sidesteps the conscience or bypasses it. Its primacy remains.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Do you accept that the Ordinary Form of the Mass Is really the ordinary form and the Extraordinary Form is for situations that are outside of the ordinary?

That is just a statement of fact. These are recently-created terms that have nothing to do with faith. This is not a “teaching of the Church” — there is no question of doctrine here. I am not sure that the Church categorically says “we call this Mass ‘Extraordinary’ because it is ‘for situations that are outside of the ordinary’”. But even if that is what is meant by the term “extraordinary”, again, it affects the Catholic Faith not one whit.

Do you accept the primacy of conscience as the Church teaches it? Or do you propose a heteronomous conscience subject to some external norms that someone else defines?

You sent me running for the dictionary, I’ll give you that. Learned a new word today — heteronomous. Thanks. I’ll have to whip that one out at the next one of those many cocktail parties I’m always going to.&

I accept the primacy of conscience, and I also accept that conscience must be formed in accord with the teachings of the Church. There is no conflict there. If the conscience deviates from the teachings of the Church, then in the objective order it is not formed properly. For those who are in this situation, it is our task, and the Church’s task, to bring them to see what is wrong with their thinking. Leaving people in ignorance, and in “good conscience” when they shouldn’t be, is one of the ultimate acts of uncharity we can commit against a person.

Much of the contemporary appeal by the Church for consciences to be respected, has to do with secular and even atheistic regimes that would force people to violate their consciences. We may never be coerced to do what we know is wrong, or to neglect to do what we know is right. That is an entirely different thing, from saying in effect “conscience emerges autonomously from the heart and mind of the individual, uninformed and untaught, and any instruction — even if it comes from the Church — must remain subordinate to, and must defer to, that raw, vital impulse that ‘bubbles up’ from the core of a person’s very being”. You did not say this, but I am just trying to encapsulate what people seem to be saying, when they place “conscience” over and above the Church’s teachings.

& - joke alert — I am the ultimate dull, boring homebody, and I haven’t been to a cocktail party in probably thirty years. I guess I’ll have to save that for chit-chat in the line at the lawn and garden store down the road.