To address what Abba asked, I think it may help if you first read what I posted
here about the interviews.
I can’t speak for the pope, nor can anyone else. We can only say what it looks like to us based on what we know from theology, what we know about the pope and what we know about Jesuit methods. In other words, anything that anyone other than the pope tells you is speculation, unless the person is quoting him directly. That’s exactly why I used the quote in the post the I linked here.
That quote comes from the interview that he did for the Jesuit magazine. If one observes very carefully, he says that a Jesuit never speaks with finality. In other words, he always leaves things open ended. There is a reason for this. St. Ignatius felt very strongly that when we speak in absolutes, we handcuff God. True mysticism is always open to surprises from God.
Having said this, there is a rule to this method. Which is not quoted in the magazine, because it’s a Jesuit magazine. Every Jesuit knows the rule. When the Church speaks in absolutes, she is speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Father spoke about moral relativism he was not giving an opinion. He was paraphrasing what the Church believes. The Church believes that Truth is not relative. Something can be true today and not tomorrow. But for today, it’s an absolute. For example, “It’s rainy in Seattle.” Tomorrow, a tourist arrives in Seattle and is received by a scorching sun. OK. When that statement was made, it was rainy. It does not cease to be true. The truth did not change, the weather changed.
The same happens with revealed truth. It does not change. The words that we use to explain it change as we unpack it. Paul spoke about relativism. But he never used the word, because he probably never heard of the word. Yet he said that scripture was not for private interpretation. You see how the language changes, but the truth remains the same? That’s what happens as we move from one pope to another and one generation to another.
It’s also important to remember that the talk that he gave to the diplomats was a message. They were not chatting. The presentation, the subject matter and the language is more formal and he draws from authoritative Church teaching.
In the statement that he makes to the atheist journalist the conditions are different. He’s not making a public statement as he was with the diplomats. The journalist and the pope did not meet so that the pope could send a message to the world or to a particular group. We call this kind of language . . . informal or conversational.
The journalist throws out an idea and the Holy Father responds very casually not intending to deliver a moral theology class. His response is very brief. Actually, his response is true. Moral theology has always said this, just not in these words.
Truth is absolute. However, not everyone has full possession of the truth. So what happens.
Moral theology tells us that we have an obligation to seek truth. But moral theology does not say that we have an obligation to find it. The seeking and the finding it are different. Faith is a gift from God. We cannot impose on God to give someone faith on our timetable.
The Holy Father does not go into a moral theology class on conscience. That’s an entire semester in the seminary. He gives the brief answer and omits some words that one would include if one were in a classroom or delivering a lecture.
The short answer is that you have an obligation to follow your conscience. When you act contrary to your conscience, you’re acting contrary to what you believe to be true. In other words, you are deliberately choosing the wrong.
On the flipside, what he’s telling this man is that if he follows his conscience and he does what he believes to be true, God understands his effort. The rest is in God’s hands.
There is no relativism here. The pope is not talking about truth. He’s talking about conscience. What he’s saying about conscience is true. One has a moral duty to do the best he can while he forges forward in search of the truth.
This is excellent advice for an atheist. Because we believe that God speaks to us through the conscience. Check it out in the CCC. I’m paraphrasing here. If the atheist follows his conscience, he will run into God, but on God’s time, not our schedule.
To sum this all up. There are two forms of speech, conversational and formal. The Holy Father’s talk to the diplomats was formal. He’s going to speak to this particular audience and tell them what he believed is important for them to know.
His meeting with the journalist was not a formal interview or event. It was a conversation between two people. If one reads the article, one can see that they did not stay on any one topic long enough to elaborate. They were all over the map, unlike the talk to the diplomats.
However, despite being all over the map, the pope never said anything that is not true.
Conscience must be formed according to revealed truth.
There is such a thing as malformed conscience, which is a conscience that believes an error to be true.
The error remains an error. It does not become true, because I believe that it’s true.
Then comes honesty.
Am I honestly trying to know the truth? Do I honestly think that oysters fly or is it a truth of convenience?
I have a moral obligation to be honest and to act according to what I honestly believe is the greater good.
This is not relativism. This is an absolute. If a man is given wiggle room to dismiss his conscience, then we’re giving him wiggle room to dismiss the voice of God when God speaks through his conscience.
This talk by
Father Barron explains this better than I can.
