The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Ender]

The fifth dubium the four cardinals presented to Pope Francis regarding AL was this:*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(What appears to me) contrary to this perspective is the one that makes the individual conscience the final arbiter of moral choices, as this appears to do: For a Catholic, if one disagrees with what the Church is teaching, then the obligation is to obey one’s conscience while being an open student of Church teaching. *(pnewton)
I don’t cite this comment to belittle it but because it seems a clear expression of a particular perspective on the conscience. The questions are: first, is it true, and second, if it is, what does it imply? (If someone feels this citation needs adjustment, feel free to do so. I’m just using it to start the debate.)

Both of these positions purport to be based on church teaching, but is that possible? The first one claims that some things “*can never be authorized”, *but the second one asserts that the conscience can authorize whatever it believes is true. Since “never” means without exception, if that statement is true then the belief that the conscience can authorize exceptions must be false. That is, both of these statements cannot be true; one or the other must be incorrect.

One could argue that since the conscience can err, when the conscience “authorizes” something that is always forbidden, it doesn’t actually authorize the act. What it does is exempt the actor from culpability. The act is still wrong, but the person who commits it is not held accountable for his wrong. But doesn’t this imply that we cannot be held accountable for errors our conscience makes? No, we know that isn’t so; we are told explicitly that one may be held accountable for the errors made by an ignorant conscience.*1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
*Given this, the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it seems in error.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One could argue that since the conscience can err, when the conscience “authorizes” something that is always forbidden, it doesn’t actually authorize the act. What it does is exempt the actor from culpability.

I believe you answered your own question well here:

One could argue that since the conscience can err, when the conscience “authorizes” something that is always forbidden, it doesn’t actually authorize the act. What it does is exempt the actor from culpability.

And yes people are regularly held temporally accountable for errors of conscience eg Luther, Joan of Arc, witches, gays, irregulars, Jesus (at least according to the Sanhedrin), martyrs (at least according to their killers), false prophets, David and Bathsheba … Whether the punishing authority were themselves correct?..well that often only is discovered well after the event…and sometimes the authority was wrong.

Of course if you are born into the authority’s camp at that later date you will likely never really know who was really right or really wrong due to brainwashing or the simple reality that the erroneous group left or were declared heretical and kicked out.

We have done this topic to death with you at least 3 times in the last 18 months.

It seems to be a personality difference so this will end the same way…inclonclusive so far as you are concerned so why relitigate it all over again?

Perhaps it’s a matter of ignorance and your error is not culpable .
But then again perhaps your ignorance can be imputed to personal responsibility on your part for being too stubborn to have your conscience well formed on this matter.

Just muck’in with ya on the last point .

 

[Thomas_White]

If there is to be another discussion of conscience, let us begin with this unequivocal teaching:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Anglican Ordinariate’s Bishop Steven J. Lopes has written a pastoral letter in regards to Amoris Laetitia and it has a part called ‘Forming Conscience’. Here are some excerpts and you can read it in full at link:

The Church never tires of loving her children, offering pastoral care to all. For the divorced and civilly remarried, “pastoral dialogue is needed … that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness” (293). Such discernment includes recognizing that “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases,” for the “Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (300, 301). Given these factors, it may be that “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved” (302).

Such discernment, which incorporates individual conscience in its reflection, is not, however, a matter for the individual to determine privately, but must be “guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor” (303, 307). While the Church recognizes varying levels of culpability and subjective responsibility, pastoral discernment must avoid “the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant ‘exceptions’” (300). The prohibition against adultery admits of no exceptions, and discernment with respect to individual culpability and growth does not permit us to “look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: [We] must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy” (Familiaris Consortio, 34). There are not “different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.”

Further, while pastoral accompaniment is called “to form consciences, not to replace them,” the formation of conscience “can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church” (Amoris Laetitia, 34, 300). Conscience is not a law unto itself, nor can conscience rightly overrule the holy law of God, for conscience “bears witness to the authority of truth” but does not create that truth (Catechism, 1776, 1777).

Consequently,** pastoral discernment admits of no exceptions to the moral law, nor does it replace moral law with the private judgments of conscience**. Instead, accompaniment, done tenderly and mercifully in the light of truth, calls people to “progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. … This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education … to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law and the ministry of reconciliation” (34).

The formation of conscience “can include the help of the sacraments,” including reconciliation and, under certain conditions, the Eucharist (351). As the Church teaches, and has always and firmly maintained, because reception of the Eucharist is the reception of Christ himself, “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to Communion” (Catechism, 1385). St. Paul cautioned that “anyone who eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning the Body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29), as Pope St. John Paul II reaffirmed: “In the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, ‘one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin’” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 36).

Reconciliation requires contrition, the “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (Catechism, 1451). A civilly-remarried couple firmly resolving complete chastity thus resolves not to sin again, which differs in kind from a civilly-remarried couple who do not firmly intend to live chastely, however much they may feel sorrow for the failure of their first marriage. In this situation, they either do not acknowledge that their unchastity, which is adultery, is gravely wrong, or they do not firmly intend to avoid sin. In either case, the disposition required for reconciliation is not satisfied, and they would receive the Eucharist in a condition of grave sin. Unless and until the civilly remarried honestly intend to refrain from sexual relations entirely, sacramental discipline does not allow for the reception of the Eucharist.

The firm intention for a chaste life is difficult, but chastity is possible, and it “can be followed with the help of grace” (Amoris Laetitia, 295). Every person is called to chastity, whether married or not, and the assistance of grace and the tenderness of mercy is available to all. Further, the law is given to us by a kind and loving God: “Since the moral order reveals and sets forth the plan of God the Creator, for this reason it cannot be something that harms man, something impersonal. On the contrary, by responding to the deepest demands of the human being created by God, it places itself at the service of that person’s full humanity with the delicate and binding love whereby God himself inspires, sustains and guides every creature towards its happiness” (Familiaris Consortio, 34).

(Bold text my emphasis)
m.ncregister.com/daily-news/ordinariate-bishop-issues-pastoral-letter-on-amoris-laetitia#.WIjscoHfWaM

 

[Ender]

If there is to be another discussion of conscience, let us begin with this unequivocal teaching:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

That’s fine, but I’d like to understand what you think this means.

1. The act becomes justified by the conscience and is not even a material sin.
2. The act is unjustified, but is only a material sin because the certain conscience protects the actor from accountability.
3. The act is unjustified, and the actor may be held accountable - that is it is a formal sin - especially if the act is contrary to known church doctrine.
   4)??

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Anglican Ordinariate’s Bishop Steven J. Lopes has written a pastoral letter in regards to Amoris Laetitia and it has a part called ‘Forming Conscience’. Here are some excerpts and you can read it in full at link:

"Consequently,** pastoral discernment admits of no exceptions to the moral law, nor does it replace moral law with the private judgments of conscience**. Instead, accompaniment, done tenderly and mercifully in the light of truth, calls people to “progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. … This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education … to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law and the ministry of reconciliation” (34).

Although this thread was initiated by comments on AL, I don’t want it to turn into a discussion about that document. That said, the above comment from Bishop Lopes is certainly relevant to the topic.

He states “pastoral discernment admits of no exceptions to the moral law”, and that moral progress demands “a sincere commitment to observe the moral law”. Do those statements leave room for the conscience to justifiably reject the moral law? It would seem not, but this is what is suggested by those who believe a certain conscience absolves one of all guilt for whatever action it leads one to commit.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

If there is to be another discussion of conscience, let us begin with this unequivocal teaching:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

True, but that does not mean that the judgement is without negative consequences, nor does it mean that the Church cannot*make attempted to prevent the person from acting on those judgements.

A great example are the so-called 'womenpriests". They might be acting on their conscience, but that does not render the excommunications unjust in any way.

Similarly, a person’s judgement of conscience might bring them to present themselves for Holy Communion, but that judgement does not bind the Church to offer it to them.

 

[Thomas_White]

True, but that does not mean that the judgement is without negative consequences, nor does it mean that the Church cannot*make attempted to prevent the person from acting on those judgements.

A great example are the so-called 'womenpriests". They might be acting on their conscience, but that does not render the excommunications unjust in any way.

Similarly, a person’s judgement of conscience might bring them to present themselves for Holy Communion, but that judgement does not bind the Church to offer it to them.

True, but why must a person always obey the certain judgment of his conscience?

CCC 1792 states the consequences of disobedience: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

Why would he condemn himself?

 

[Thomas_White]

That’s fine, but I’d like to understand what you think this means.

1. The act becomes justified by the conscience and is not even a material sin.
2. The act is unjustified, but is only a material sin because the certain conscience protects the actor from accountability.
3. The act is unjustified, and the actor may be held accountable - that is it is a formal sin - especially if the act is contrary to known church doctrine.
   4)??

Ender

1. None of the above.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God” (CCC 1776).

It is this law, inscribed on the heart by God, that man must obey, if necessary against the official Church and even ecclesiastical authority. An act does not become justified by the conscience, but rather it is justified by the law inscribed by God on man’s heart and heard as the voice of conscience. That this law is inscribed on the heart by God is of course why it must, above all, be obeyed.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The fifth dubium the four cardinals presented to Pope Francis regarding AL was this:*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(What appears to me) contrary to this perspective is the one that makes the individual conscience the final arbiter of moral choices, as this appears to do: For a Catholic, if one disagrees with what the Church is teaching, then the obligation is to obey one’s conscience while being an open student of Church teaching. *(pnewton)
I don’t cite this comment to belittle it but because it seems a clear expression of a particular perspective on the conscience. The questions are: first, is it true, and second, if it is, what does it imply? (If someone feels this citation needs adjustment, feel free to do so. I’m just using it to start the debate.)

Both of these positions purport to be based on church teaching, but is that possible? The first one claims that some things “*can never be authorized”, *but the second one asserts that the conscience can authorize whatever it believes is true. Since “never” means without exception, if that statement is true then the belief that the conscience can authorize exceptions must be false. That is, both of these statements cannot be true; one or the other must be incorrect.

One could argue that since the conscience can err, when the conscience “authorizes” something that is always forbidden, it doesn’t actually authorize the act. What it does is exempt the actor from culpability. The act is still wrong, but the person who commits it is not held accountable for his wrong. But doesn’t this imply that we cannot be held accountable for errors our conscience makes? No, we know that isn’t so; we are told explicitly that one may be held accountable for the errors made by an ignorant conscience.*1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
*Given this, the conclusion that one is justified in ignoring church doctrine simply because one in good conscience cannot accept it seems in error.

Ender

Without splitting hairs and getting into absolutes; Yes it is possible, and both positions are true.

The crux of n.56 in VS is the word “creative”. This would imply an intentional bending of the conscience, not out of ignorance but out of a lack of respect for Church teaching even though the rule in question is fully understood. Pnewton’s quote implies the teaching is not fully understood and accepted, but remains open to trying to understand.

The average person is in “formation” basically their entire lives, so when they encounter a situations in which they don’t know how to apply Church teaching, or just don’t know Church teaching, or does not understand Church teaching therefore dismissing it, or - as is common today - Church teaching never even enters their mind … they are bound to use their conscience in forming decisions. There are so many varying degrees of this stuff that it’s impossible for the Church to make anything but general statements about it and leave the rest to individual discernment where … hopefully, as AL tries to emphasis, pastoral accompaniment is present to help in the discernment process.

That being said, obedience should override the conscience of a person who disagrees with Church teaching. But that is the ideal. It’s definitely not human nature for an adult to obey a rule that they don’t understand the logic behind.

 

[Thomas_White]

…obedience should override the conscience of a person who disagrees with Church teaching.

And condemn himself? That is the teaching of CCC 1792.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

And condemn himself? That is the teaching of CCC 1792.

No, sorry. That’s not what I meant. I was referring more to the “creative” conscience. How can a person know when they are getting “creative” with their conscience? Again, I’m trying not to split hairs and get into absolutes regarding an individual’s discernment of conscience.

 

[Ender]

1. None of the above.

I presented this option in the hope that if someone chose it he would also explain it. Let me try it this way:

1. If a person commits a sinful act, does that act become not sinful because it was initiated by a certain conscience? Yes/no.
2. If no (the act remains a sin), is it merely a material sin because acting on a certain conscience renders a person not morally responsible for his actions? Yes/no.
3. If a person commits an act condemned by the church can he be said to have acted against the Moral Law? Yes/no.

I think resolving these points will help us understand the implications raised by rejecting church doctrine…with a certain conscience of course.

An act does not become justified by the conscience, but rather it is justified by the law inscribed by God on man’s heart and heard as the voice of conscience.

I’m not sure I understand this. If the law is inscribed by God then how can the conscience err? Since the church asserts that the law is inscribed by God, and yet she also asserts that the conscience can err, what is going on?

I recognize that what is taken for the urging of the conscience can often be just rationalization for doing what we want, but how do we tell the difference? How do we identify the certain conscience as distinguished from…what, the normal conscience?

That this law is inscribed on the heart by God is of course why it must, above all, be obeyed.

Is it reasonable to hold that the law inscribed by God on the individual heart differs from the law of God given to the church? Can we believe there are two contradictory laws?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s fine, but I’d like to understand what you think this means. Ender

1. The act becomes justified by the conscience and is not even a material sin.

No. Who ever said it wasn’t a “sin”.
All moral offences are sins, but not all sins are moral offences.
“Moral fault” is a subset of “sin”, just as Aquinas 101 states.

Serious moral fault has infinite punishment from God and temporal consequences re Man and Nature.
Minor moral fault may have finite temporal punishment from both God and Man and Nature…
Sins of no moral fault may have temporal punishment from Man and Nature.

This is the language you like, is it clear what pro conscience contributors mean now?
But then acts of love can completely change the above too.
“Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much…”

1. The act is unjustified, but is only a material sin because the certain conscience protects the actor from accountability.

Well you will have to give a very precise definition of what you mean by the English word “justified” and “act” before this can be answered surely?
But if its about “sanctifying grace” then you already know the answer don’t you?

1. The act is unjustified, and the actor may be held accountable - that is it is a formal sin - especially if the act is contrary to known church doctrine.

4)??

Your difficulty lies in understanding what kind of “severity” is meant by the ambiguous phrases “grave sin” or “grave offence”.

As Aquinas clearly states when analysing “sin”, we can mean either (or both) of two different types of severity:
(a) that referring to the matter (grave or light)
(b) that referring to the degree of culpability (mortal, venial or none at all).

So which type of seriously unjustified “act” are you actually referring to please?
And what do you mean by holding the agent “accountable”? To God? To a criminal court? To a Church court? To the consequences of natural law (as in jump off a cliff without culpability you still get punished at the bottom)?

Do you really understand what you are on about here?
Your loose and ambiguous questions don’t indicate you are clear on what it is that you are really asking sorry Ender.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure I understand this. If the law is inscribed by God then how can the conscience err?

Because “the voice of conscience” is not 'God".
The VOC merely attempts to read what God “wrote” into man’s human nature.
There is no guarantee that wounded man, even when doing his best, is always reading/speaking it back as God wrote it or “pronounced” it is there?

Have you ever tried to verbalise a vivid dream on waking to somebody?
If you can convey 20% of the meaning you are doing very well.
Those experiences deep within just cannot always be adequately put into words.
Why would you think the above process is any better?

I recognize that what is taken for the urging of the conscience can often be just rationalization for doing what we want, but how do we tell the difference?

I think Cardinal Ratzinger explained the difference well when speaking of the Nazis who confused guiltless consciousness for certain conscience.
You know the article…and myself and others gave you a number of indicators of conscience versus rationalisation in the same debates.

 

[Brendan]

True, but why must a person always obey the certain judgment of his conscience?

CCC 1792 states the consequences of disobedience: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

Why would he condemn himself?

I am not denying that the personviolate their own conscience, my point is that following judgements ofconscience are not without repercussions, nor does it mean that the Church, or even secular authorities, arerequired topermit actions based on those acts.

But to your point, that is an internal decision of right or wrong.*The person, by doing what they feel is wrong, is making a personal condemnationof their own actions. That is distinct from a Divine condemnation, which might be the result of that person following their own conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

I presented this option in the hope that if someone chose it he would also explain it. Let me try it this way:

If a person commits a sinful act, does that act become not sinful because it was initiated by a certain conscience? Yes/no

.
No. A certain judgment of conscious can be wrong by having come to askew convictions. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger called the stifled “anamnesis of being” (the natural law that God has inscribed on the heart).

I do not believe this is as complex as it is often made to seem. The voice of the conscience is actually a feeling, a sense, or intuition, which is why it is said to be of the heart. Virtually every neurotypical (PC-speak for normal) human being “feels” that murder, stealing, and even the coveting of a neighbor’s spouse or goods, for example, is wrong. This understanding does not require an advanced degree in theology or any great discernment to discover. Those are informative things, of course. But even children know right from wrong. Consequently, I’ve never really accepted the notion of a formation of conscience, since such a formation is most definitely of the intellect rather than of the “heart”. Conscience concerns natural law, and what is inscribed on man’s heart is innate and not learned.

2)If no (the act remains a sin), is it merely a material sin because acting on a certain conscience renders a person not morally responsible for his actions? Yes/no.

No. A person is always responsible for his actions. I believe a sinful act occurs when a person willfully does not follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If a person knows very well that an act would be sinful but goes ahead and deliberately commits it anyway, then yes, it is a sinful act.

[3)If a person commits an act condemned by the church can he be said to have acted against the Moral Law? Yes/no.

The moral law? Yes, I’d say so if by the Moral Law we mean the teachings of the Church. The law inscribed by God on man’s heart is natural law, e.g., the law Cain violated when he murdered Abel before Moses received the Ten Commandments.

I think resolving these points will help us understand the implications raised by rejecting church doctrine…with a certain conscience of course.
I’m not sure I understand this. If the law is inscribed by God then how can the conscience err? Since the church asserts that the law is inscribed by God, and yet she athat the conscience can err, what is going on?

My understanding is that the conscience can err when there is some disturbance. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger has described as “the stifled anamnesis of being”. The fault then lies at a much deeper level. This can be very serious, as it is with the sociopath and psychopath–those deaf to the voice of conscience.

I recognize that what is taken for the urging of the conscience can often be just rationalization for doing what we want, but how do we tell the difference? How do we identify the certain conscience as distinguished from…what, the normal conscience?
Is it reasonable to hold that the law inscribed by God on the individual heart differs from the law of God given to the church? Can we believe there are two contradictory laws?

Ender

Rationalization is not the result of the certain judgment of conscience at all. It is a psychological phenomenon. But the moral law of the Church is not really the same thing as the natural law inscribed by God on man’s heart. The one is of the intellect and greatly elucidated, the other is of the heart and akin to intuition, as in a feeling.

However, inasmuch as the law inscribed on the heart is also God’s law, I believe than in some very few instances the individual conscience could discern something not yet a formal teaching of the Church. This is related to the development of doctrine, as it is described in Dei Verbum.
[/quote]

 

[EIF5A]

If personal conscience directly violates moral or Church law, is that not reason to be suspicious of devilish delusion?

female priests, participating in gay ‘marriage’ ceremonies, etc.

 

[RCinMT]

This is thread has been helpful to me. So to summarize and make sure I understand: we owe obeisance to our conscience only because it’s within our conscience that God has really inscribed morality. Ergo, we are all free to disregard Church doctrine and teaching because there’s no need for it: we all know what’s right or wrong for us.

In honesty, I was solidly Catholic until the AL discussion began. After reading through these forums and listening to Framcis speak against clericalism and dogmatics (what President Obama might have referred to as people clinging to their Bibles), I am probably leaving the Church and Christianity in general. The time I spend in Church and teaching RE would be better spent doing good works as the Church has nothing to offer.

 

[ARSpade]

For a Catholic, if one disagrees with what the Church is teaching, then the obligation is to obey one’s conscience while being an open student of Church teaching. (pnewton)

Which is kinda ridiculous. Everybody always likes to use this stuff when talking about squishy stuff, but go ahead and apply that to heavier stuff like murder or warfare.

I mean, when I came back to the church ones of my stumbling blocks was the death penalty. But I figured, “welp, if I want to be Catholic with all the rest, guess I should just shut up and color.”

But now, hey, my conscience has always told me that some people just need killin’, so I guess I can go back to thinking the death penalty doesn’t get used enough.