Do you agree with Aquinas?

[Charlemagne_III]

So, are you saying you agree with Thomas’ position as stated in your OP?

Thomas defines conscience a little different than the CCC does. Thomas defines it as an act rooted in synderesis but also relying on reason and/or precepts. The CCC defines it as synderesis and their application(also ant act?) but not including precepts . Synderesis being very early on defined as the spark of conscience by St Jerome in the 400’s. Later refined, in the 1200’s, to mean the innate natural law that human beings poses. Today, the CCC defines conscience as “the inner voice from God written on our hearts”, that sounds a lot like the early definitions of synderesis by St. Jerome and other theologians of the 13th century. Moreover, synderesis is said to be incorruptible.

I think I’m saying that St. Thomas agrees with St. Paul, that even the pagans will be held accountable on the last day for they too will have no excuse for defying their conscience.

This is not to say that we cannot lie to ourselves and persuade ourselves that we are right when we defy God. This is the fundamental flaw of atheism, which also will have no excuse on the day of judgment though you will hear atheist pronounce their justification in the name of truth, as if truth and God could not be synonymous.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I think I’m saying that St. Thomas agrees with St. Paul, that even the pagans will be held accountable on the last day for they too will have no excuse for defying their conscience.

This is not to say that we cannot lie to ourselves and persuade ourselves that we are right when we defy God. This is the fundamental flaw of atheism, which also will have no excuse on the day of judgment though you will hear atheist pronounce their justification in the name of truth, as if truth and God could not be synonymous.

So do you agree or disagree?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So do you agree or disagree?

Yes.

Conscience is the infallible guide and trumps every excuse to suppress it.

Which is not to say that people will not succeed in suppressing it.

That is why the Bible and the Church are required to affirm and sustain conscience against the onslaughts of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 

[davidv]

Yes.

Conscience is the infallible guide

I don’t believe this is not true, as an unformed or malformed conscience can be wrong in judging the morality of an act.

CCC:

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

CCC 1790:

…Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

and trumps every excuse to suppress it.

Which is not to say that people will not succeed in suppressing it.

That is why the Bible and the Church are required to affirm and sustain conscience against the onslaughts of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t believe this is not true, as an unformed or malformed conscience can be wrong in judging the morality of an act.

Did you mean to say “I don’t believe this is true”?

As Aquinas said, “A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.”

So conscience can only operate rightly if it is not rational. But that does not mean that conscience has erred. What it means is that the intellect has erred in guiding conscience. We see this when a person reforms himself to be better than he has been as a result of “seeing” what he should have seen all along. The blindness of intellect corrupts us because we want to be corrupted, but conscience remains uncorrupted and people sooner or later have the epiphany (awakening) to the fact of their sinfulness, even if the epiphany comes only on the deathbed as it does for many of us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charlemagne_III:
**So conscience can only operate rightly if it is not rational. **But that does not mean that conscience has erred. What it means is that the intellect has erred in guiding conscience. We see this when a person reforms himself to be better than he has been as a result of “seeing” what he should have seen all along. The blindness of intellect corrupts us because we want to be corrupted, but conscience remains uncorrupted and people sooner or later have the epiphany (awakening) to the fact of their sinfulness, even if the epiphany comes only on the deathbed as it does for many of us.

The bold sentence above should have read:

"So conscience can only operate rightly if it is rational."

 

[davidv]

Did you mean to say “I don’t believe this is true”?

I did.

As Aquinas said, “A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.”

So conscience can only operate rightly if it is not rational.

How does this follow from the above? It seems to me that applying “rational” to conscience in this context is not meaningful. The purpose of conscience is to inform the intellect of the goodness of an action. Depending on the formation of the conscience, the conscience may provided accurate information, or wrong information.

But that does not mean that conscience has erred. What it means is that the intellect has erred in guiding conscience.

I believe this is the reverse of what is happening.

We see this when a person reforms himself to be better than he has been as a result of “seeing” what he should have seen all along. The blindness of intellect corrupts us because we want to be corrupted, but conscience remains uncorrupted and people sooner or later have the epiphany (awakening) to the fact of their sinfulness, even if the epiphany comes only on the deathbed as it does for many of us.

 

[o_mlly]

Conscience never fails. No matter how dark it gets, the soul wittingly or unwittingly reaches for the Light that shines in the darkness.

The “Voice” of conscience, God’s work, never fails. Judgments of conscience, man’s work, may fail in as much as the “Voice” is ignored.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The “Voice” of conscience, God’s work, never fails. Judgments of conscience, man’s work, may fail in as much as the “Voice” is ignored.

I’d say it’s not the conscience that fails, but the will. The intellect is blinded by the will which chooses evil over good. The conscience remains intact, knowing it does evil even when it exults in doing evil. This is why thieves like to work in the dark, when they can; their conscience knows that what they are doing is wrong and they are hoping to shield themselves from the light that will reveal them for the evil they have chosen to do.

 

[davidv]

I’d say it’s not the conscience that fails, but the will. The intellect is blinded by the will which chooses evil over good.

Why do you say this? It does not seem consistent with my understanding of the intellect and will.

The conscience remains intact, knowing it does evil even when it exults in doing evil. This is why thieves like to work in the dark, when they can; their conscience knows that what they are doing is wrong and they are hoping to shield themselves from the light that will reveal them for the evil they have chosen to do.

 

[IWantGod]

Why not? It seems reasonable…

That is ridiculous. Punishment for sin assumes you “know” or knew with a sound mind and clear heart at the time of the act that you were sinning.

If you don’t know that you have sinned, then you cannot be judged. Somebody telling me that Shiva or God exists is not equal to having ontological knowledge.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why do you say this? It does not seem consistent with my understanding of the intellect and will.

Intellect, will, and conscience are not all the same.

Conscience is an immediate knowledge of right and wrong. That’s all it is. It is the natural law embedded in our being from the time of our creation. That is why atheists and pagans have no excuse for sin, as St. Paul says.

Intellect and will are separate functions that exist apart from conscience.

You can know what is right and wrong while at the same time willing right **or **wrong.

Conscience will not betray us, but the intellect and the will between them can betray us.

Augustine and Aquinas agree on this. When we do evil, intellect is happy to cloud our full realization of hurting ourselves by presenting the evil as a good. It is the will that encourages the intellect to do so, because the will is full of appetite for the world, the flesh, and the devil. But conscience is steadfast, and we know this because when the sin has passed, conscience reminds us that we have sinned and that we require atonement and forgiveness.

 

[e_c]

Intellect, will, and conscience are not all the same.

Conscience is an immediate knowledge of right and wrong. That’s all it is. It is the natural law embedded in our being from the time of our creation. That is why atheists and pagans have no excuse for sin, as St. Paul says.

Intellect and will are separate functions that exist apart from conscience.

You can know what is right and wrong while at the same time willing right **or **wrong.

Conscience will not betray us, but the intellect and the will between them can betray us.

Augustine and Aquinas agree on this. When we do evil, intellect is happy to cloud our full realization of hurting ourselves by presenting the evil as a good. It is the will that encourages the intellect to do so, because the will is full of appetite for the world, the flesh, and the devil. But conscience is steadfast, and we know this because when the sin has passed, conscience reminds us that we have sinned and that we require atonement and forgiveness.

You continue to say things that imply that the conscience is infallible. It is not…

 

[o_mlly]

I’d say it’s not the conscience that fails, but the will. The intellect is blinded by the will which chooses evil over good. The conscience remains intact, knowing it does evil even when it exults in doing evil. This is why thieves like to work in the dark, when they can; their conscience knows that what they are doing is wrong and they are hoping to shield themselves from the light that will reveal them for the evil they have chosen to do.

The Right Reverend Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D. and S.T.D writes in “A Tour of the Summa”:

1. When a person reaches a reasoned conclusion about hisown duty, the conclusion is a practical judgment. This judgment is called conscience. Hence conscience is not a special faculty; it is an act of the faculty of intellect as reason.Sometimes people confuse conscience with synderesis, and call synderesis itself by the name conscience. This is an inaccurate use of terms. Synderesis is a habit; conscience is an act; neither is a faculty. Reason draws upon synderesis informing the conscience-judgment.(Emphasis mine).

catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/

 

[davidv]

Intellect, will, and conscience are not all the same.

Agreed.

Conscience is an immediate knowledge of right and wrong. That’s all it is. It is the natural law embedded in our being from the time of our creation. That is why atheists and pagans have no excuse for sin, as St. Paul says.

This falls short of the description of conscience in the CCC. I saw at least three aspects: 1. “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act”; 2. “Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality”; and 3. “Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed”
Based on these it appears to me that conscience is more than knowledge, and includes judgment as well.

Intellect and will are separate functions that exist apart from conscience.

Agreed. However, there is one other aspect of the soul that must be considered, and that is the passions.

You can know what is right and wrong while at the same time willing right **or **wrong.

Conscience will not betray us, but the intellect and the will between them can betray us.

Except when it is malformed, or unformed, then it will provide an erroneous judgment as to the morality of an act.

Augustine and Aquinas agree on this.

I don’t think they do, particularly not based the quote in the OP.

When we do evil, intellect is happy to cloud our full realization of hurting ourselves by presenting the evil as a good. It is the will that encourages the intellect to do so, because the will is full of appetite for the world, the flesh, and the devil. But conscience is steadfast, and we know this because when the sin has passed, conscience reminds us that we have sinned and that we require atonement and forgiveness.

I believe it is the passions that cloud the intellect, which is then unable to instruct the will toward the good rather than evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe it is the passions that cloud the intellect, which is then unable to instruct the will toward the good rather than evil.

I don’t see the disjunction between will and passions that you seem to indicate exists.

Passion is more fundamental to the will than to the intellect, no?

The intellect does not instruct the will in anything. It presents options to the will.

Options of good and evil the knowledge of which is present in the conscience naturally according to the natural law.

The will chooses by the dominant power of the passions that we give in to.

The intellect is clouded because the will chooses for it to be clouded, choosing evil before good according as we succumb to evil, or good before evil according as we obey our true conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

According to Aquinas, “he who acts against his conscience always sins.”

This means that conscience cannot be bad.

Can you give me an example of bad reasoning that leads to bad conscience?

 

[o_mlly]

According to Aquinas, “he who acts against his conscience always sins.”

This means that conscience cannot be bad.

Can you give me an example of bad reasoning that leads to bad conscience?

A Catholic who in good conscience disagrees with the Magisterium on a fundamental doctrine has erred intellectually. He venially sins against his faith.

Now he must decide whether or not to sin against his conscience. If he remains in the Church and continues to call himself Catholic he mortally sins acting in opposition to his conscience (acquires a “bad” conscience). If he leaves the Church then he acts consistent with his good conscience and sins only against his faith, that is against faith’s infused knowledge.

The Argument from Conscience
Thus people usually admit, though not usually in these words, the absolute moral authority and binding obligation of conscience.

Such people are usually surprised and pleased to find out that Saint Thomas Aquinas, of all people, agrees with them to such an extent that he says if a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

Peter Kreeft
peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

 

[e_c]

According to Aquinas, “he who acts against his conscience always sins.”

This means that conscience cannot be bad.

Can you give me an example of bad reasoning that leads to bad conscience?

You have completely misunderstood Thomas.

He also says that, if the conscience is malformed, there are cases where it is impossible for one to avoid sin. See the Article in Disputed Questions we were referencing.

Here’s an example:

“It is irresponsible for me to have a child now, but I am pregnant. So it would be wrong of me to allow my fetus to come to term, as it would cause me and my child and others a lot of pain and suffering. So I ought to have an abortion. It is the right thing to do.”

She thinks it is immoral to allow the child to live because of a precept of justice. So to allow it to be born is now a sin - because then she attempts to violate justice. It is formal sin with no material sin.

When having an abortion, she violates justice in reality, but does not do so according to her conscience. It is now formal sin and material sin.

She has a malformed conscience… it is impossible for her not to sin, unless she changes her conscience to be conformed to truth.

Conscience is not infallible. It is our attempt to understand and apply the moral law in our lives. A perfectly formed conscience which is constantly adverted to would be capable of what you are suggesting…

This a clear teaching in the CCC. Whence the confusion?

 

[e_c]

A Catholic who in good conscience disagrees with the Magisterium on a fundamental doctrine has erred intellectually. He venially sins against his faith.

Now he must decide whether or not to sin against his conscience. If he remains in the Church and continues to call himself Catholic he mortally sins acting in opposition to his conscience (acquires a “bad” conscience). If he leaves the Church then he acts consistent with his good conscience and sins only against his faith, that is against faith’s infused knowledge.

The Argument from Conscience
Thus people usually admit, though not usually in these words, the absolute moral authority and binding obligation of conscience.

Such people are usually surprised and pleased to find out that Saint Thomas Aquinas, of all people, agrees with them to such an extent that he says if a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

Peter Kreeft
peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

…But it remains a mortal sin against the virtue of Faith. What exactly is a “sin against knowledge” anyway? What is his source for that?