The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Thomas_White]

It can be debated whether one (ever) has a moral obligation **to act **in a positive way, as opposed to a moral obligation to refrain from a wrong act.

Agreed. And it is what you are asking, i.e., whether a person has a moral obligation to perform a particular act. The short answer is no.

Sorry if I misread you. You quoted that section of the ccc multiple times and from the perspective that it is clear and definitive. I took that as “strong adherence” - perhaps I was wrong? In any event, there seems to be a stark contrast between your acceptance of that teaching and your position on the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the latter also being taught by the Church, and with considerable force - in Veritatis Splendor and numerous references in the ccc. Seems to me that it would be more straightforward to view conscience as the unequivocal arbiter of the “right” choice if there are no intrinsically evil acts. Because if there are instrinsically evil acts, conscience being in conflict with the prohibition on such an act may be hard to resolve. [My personal resolution is that I may not act contrary to the red light of conscience nor contrary to the red light of what is definitively taught.

I’ve quoted it multiple times in reply to comments that question its truth. It means just what it says, but also because, by personal experience, I know its truth. Whether or not there is intrinsic evil does not resonate in this way. Evil is evil, whether it would be intrinsic or otherwise.

I have in life and work encountered a number of sociopaths. In my experience, they typically know (intellectually) the social norms re right and wrong. Their distinguishing characteristic is the absence of guilt or remorse when they act in ways they have learned that society views as wrong. There is an absence of empathy, and they literally do not care about other persons. This involves conscience and concerns feeling. The world is very fortunate this is not the norm and that conscience is a reality.

If abortion were an intrinsic evil, why would you ask the questions about the doctor’s behavior? The fact is the same questions arise as they would for any other human act. To question the idea of intrinsic evil is speculative, and it concerns the source of evil–i.e., would God have created evil? Or, as Augustine argued, does evil result from man’s misuse of the good?

Actually, I asked 2 very specific questions:

*If while knowing this [the teaching re: murdering innocents], Dr Perl felt her conscience tells her to abort babies (see the link in post #129 for the reason and circumstances) would Dr Perl be obligated to refrain from abortion *

(in deference to unequivocal doctrine) or to follow her conscience and abort babies? Your answer is a little vague - simply saying “she is not obligated to do anything”. OK, but does the teaching (re: murder of innocents) obligate her to refrain? It’s a yes or no question.

Again, she did not have to act. Conscience would only tell her whether to act was right or wrong. It that way, the question does not have a yes or no answer. A person could know that it would be good for him to receive communion on a given day, but typically he is not morally obligated to do so. This involves theoretical reason–the knowledge it would be good were he to do so. Practical reason concerns praxis, or acting, and this is the answer to your question.

1. If it is Perl’s testimony that she acted on the guidance of conscience, could that in fact be correct, or must it be the case that she was driven by something else?

**Your response appears clear: It could and would be correct to act to abort **[your post #164, citing ccc1800]. However, I’m not sure you answered the question I intended - I was not asking whether to abort was a “good” act, but rather whether her conscience could in fact exhort her to commit an act the Church has declared to be intrinsically evil?

It could be but does not necessarily have to be the case that she was motivated by something else. In my post #164, I was replying to your comment: “If it is Perl’s testimony that she acted on the question of conscience, could that in fact be correct, or must it be the case she was driven by something else?” In reply, I quoted CCC1800, meaning that ‘yes’ it could in fact be correct that, in acting, she obeyed the certain judgment of her conscience. Must it be the case that she was driven by something else? Clearly this was not necessarily the case.

The certain judgment of her conscience, which concerns the act in itself (i.e., abortion) does not compel her to act. It only tells her whether to perform the act (i.e., to perform abortions) would be right or wrong in the circumstances. There are a multitude of things a person could do that would be good, but obviously not every person invariable acts on all such judgments. In fact, it would probably be impossible.
[/quote]

 

[Thomas_White]

^This is my view of it. And for this reason, we cannot do away with what the Church teaches, and it is dangerous to operate on the basis that conscience is always the overriding authority since to be sure one is in contact with conscience may not always be easy, particularly in circumstances of great emotion.

So the answers to post #129 I give myself are:

• one is obligated to refrain from abortion;
• concluding abortion is the good course is not a judgement of conscience.

Obviously a person has moral obligations, and it is wrong to fail to meet them. But I do not believe a person has a moral obligation to act as the result of the certain judgment of his conscience. He can do nothing or at least not act in an evil way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There can be no case made that performing an abortion is justifiable under any circumstance

By “unjustifiable” surely you mean directly intending to kill an unborn child is always a gravely disordered act but the culpability may be reduced?

We may of course indirectly intend to kill unborn children as an unfortunate consequence of a life saving medical procedure on the mother and that would be justifiable.
In that case we would not call it murder or abortion… rather a life saving procedure.

Nor is it possible for my conscience to accept it and yours to disavow it.

I don’t see how you can possibly speak for me or the other millions on the planet re their conscience sorry. I can accept that those brought up in an atheistic scientific milieux may come to the convinced belief that unquickened embryos are not human so may not see them having the same right to life as later life from the womb. There seems to be no intrinsic reason why that belief would contradict the meaning of “the law of God written on our hearts.” Could you read the tablets of the law brought down by Moses from Sinai?

If Aquinas holds than men can commit what we call fornication and are without moral fault if they do not understand it is wrong…then its clear your understanding of “its written in your heart” or “the Church told ya so” isn’t robust enough yet.

Therefore if my conscience allows for abortion, it is not my true conscience, but a distortion.

Just another unconvincing “immovable objects definitely cannot be shifted” word play…lets move on, nothing to see here.

The person who has, performs, or supports abortion sins.

Correct, but is it always a moral fault is the real issue.

…If one’s conscience believes otherwise, that conscience is deformed.

You mean the formation of the conscience is imperfect surely?
Of course. The question is whether it is culpably so.
Imperfectly formed consciences are a fact of life for everybody - including you - as “its the work of a lifetime”.
And its not just about ticking off a bucket-list of clearly articulated “teachings” one had never heard before.

 

[goout]

^This is my view of it. And for this reason, we cannot do away with what the Church teaches, and it is dangerous to operate on the basis that conscience is always the overriding authority since to be sure one is in contact with conscience may not always be easy, particularly in circumstances of great emotion.

So the answers to post #129 I give myself are:

• one is obligated to refrain from abortion;
• concluding abortion is the good course is not a judgement of conscience.

I’m not sure conscience is ever described by the Church as “authority”.

The role of conscience is poorly inderstood by some.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured decision difficult. But he must **always seriously seek what is right and good **and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

I do not see a good faith representation of conscience but rather an attempt to improperly exalt it and excuse seeking itself rather than what is right and good.

 

[Vico]

I touched on the point before of being wrong regardless of which choice one makes: of not following one’s conscience and not performing an abortion, or following one’s conscience and performing the abortion. The fault in the first case is going against one’s conscience, and in the second it is in performing a grave sin.

I think the problem lies in the conscience. There can be no case made that performing an abortion is justifiable under any circumstance, nor is it possible for my conscience to accept it and yours to disavow it. If the conscience is the law of God written on our hearts then the same law applies to all; it is unthinkable that God would apply different standards to different people. There is one truth, and it applies to us all.

Therefore if my conscience allows for abortion, it is not my true conscience, but a distortion. I think it is this concept that Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to when he said: “a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false.” The “certainty” of our conscience does not justify what is unjustifiable: “I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience.”

The person who has, performs, or supports abortion sins. The act is never justified, personal conscience notwithstanding. If one’s conscience believes otherwise, that conscience is deformed.

Ender

It is not necessarily a sin to go against ones conscience, because it may be deformed. Although you said the converse, I believe you agree with what the catechism states below.

Catechism

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.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. …

 

[Abynissa]

From an outsider, I am getting thoroughly confused following the logic in this thread on the various nuances concerning Catholic doctrine and theology and which is binding and which is not.

For an outsider, Is there a way to bring all this together in a summary post of the pros and cons related to the issues concerning the Church’s position on committing an act through Invincibly Ignorance or violation of your own conscience under the heading -conscience is “inviolable” - condemns one to hell if it violates either the natural, moral or ecclesiastic laws with regards to defining certain acts as mortal sin?

If the law of God is written on the hearts of every man can anyone be invincibly ignorant able or be able to violate his own conscience under the ‘doctrine’ - conscience is “inviolable? If so, does it result in condemnation to hell.

I hear terms condemn, harm, etc. but have we reached a conclusion on “one cannot truly be in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation, but this is the issue being discussed?”

The fact that this concept is so obscure, is this not a problem in and of itself with regards to accountability?​

 

[Ginny89]

churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-mueller-no-communion-to-civilly-remarried-divorcees

Cdl. Gerhard Müller: Neither “the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it”
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Cardinal Gerhard Müller is affirming that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must pledge to remain continent before being admitted to the sacraments and that not even the pope can remove this indispensable condition.

The Italian magazine II Timone recently asked the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) if the stipulation that such couples “strive to live in continence” prior to reception of confession and Holy Communion — as required by Pope St. John Paul II — was still required. The Vatican’s chief doctrinal watchdog responded, “Of course, it is not dispensable.”

The cardinal emphasized that the Church has no ability to alter this law. “[N]o power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”

He advised those bishops, whom he said “are talking too much,” to first learn the Faith themselves before attempting to teach others. “I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate.” If bishops don’t become well-informed themselves, then they may “fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind.”

Asked if personal conscience could ever trump Church teaching on faith and morals, the cardinal flatly rejected the possibility. “No, that is impossible,” he replied. “For example, it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to co-exist with sanctifying grace.”

We have the person charged with correcting doctrinal errors on behalf of the pope speaking in absolutely clear terms. He also says the same thing we have been saying about the pope. His authority, while great, does not involve altering the church tradition on this for this is not an alterable practice nor a mere discipline. If it were, the church could change it.

Unless the pope fires him too, it is clear that those claiming the opposite are the ones off on their own trail off the beaten path of the church. I think Jimmy Akin’s article claiming that the church has always done this is very strange.

 

[Vico]

From an outsider, I am getting thoroughly confused following the logic in this thread on the various nuances concerning Catholic doctrine and theology and which is binding and which is not.

For an outsider, Is there a way to bring all this together in a summary post of the pros and cons related to the issues concerning the Church’s position on committing an act through Invincibly Ignorance or violation of your own conscience under the heading -conscience is “inviolable” - condemns one to hell if it violates either the natural, moral or ecclesiastic laws with regards to defining certain acts as mortal sin?

If the law of God is written on the hearts of every man can anyone be invincibly ignorant able or be able to violate his own conscience under the ‘doctrine’ - conscience is “inviolable? If so, does it result in condemnation to hell.

I hear terms condemn, harm, etc. but have we reached a conclusion on “one cannot truly be in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation, but this is the issue being discussed?”

The fact that this concept is so obscure, is this not a problem in and of itself with regards to accountability?​

Sin has three sources: ignorance, passion, and malice. Everything heard in the personal conscience is not necessarily certain moral truth. From the Catechism:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

2039 … Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

I touched on the point before of being wrong regardless of which choice one makes: of not following one’s conscience and not performing an abortion, or following one’s conscience and performing the abortion. The fault in the first case is going against one’s conscience, and in the second it is in performing a grave sin.

If it were a person’s certain judgment of conscience that performing an abortion would not be evil, it does not follow that the person must, as the certain judgment of conscience, necessarily perform the abortion. To obey the certain judgment of conscience, in this instance that performing the abortion would not be evil, does not compel a person to act. And there can be no grave sin of abortion if one does not occur. This is your misunderstanding.

The second instance rejects the teaching concerning culpability, or deliberate consent. Abortion is a mortal sin only if abortion is strictly defined as mortal sin. It is only then that it is an analytic judgment that contains its predicate in its subject, e.g., “all bachelors are unmarried” is an analytic judgment. So is the judgment that all abortions defined as mortal sin are a mortal sin. However, that “all bachelors are happy” is not an analytic judgment since its predicate is not contained in its subject. And unless it is true that abortion is always by definition a mortal sin, then it is not an analytic judgment either since its predicate mortal sin would not be contained in its subject. It must then be justified by reference to some external principle, and this makes it difficult to apply in specific cases. In logic, this is the difference between necessary and contingent truth.

I think the problem lies in the conscience. There can be no case made that performing an abortion is justifiable under any circumstance, nor is it possible for my conscience to accept it and yours to disavow it. If the conscience is the law of God written on our hearts then the same law applies to all; it is unthinkable that God would apply different standards to different people. There is one truth, and it applies to us all.

You cannot prove that “no case can be made that performing an abortion is justifiable under any circumstance” simply by saying it. It requires a reference to an external principle, and that of course would be intrinsic evil. And I would argue there are difficulties with the principle. It happens. There are those who have difficulties in accepting CCC 1776 and 1800, not to mention Laudato si and Amoris Latitia.

Therefore if my conscience allows for abortion, it is not my true conscience, but a distortion. I think it is this concept that Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to when he said: “a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false.” The “certainty” of our conscience does not justify what is unjustifiable: “I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience.”

The person who has, performs, or supports abortion sins. The act is never justified, personal conscience notwithstanding. If one’s conscience believes otherwise, that conscience is deformed.

Ender

You are taking Ratzinger’s comments totally out of their context, which were part of very complex argument. Before the text ever reaches those particular comments, Ratzinger says it is not disputed that a person must always obey the judgment of his conscience. Again, no one has said the conscience cannot err.

 

[Ender]

By “unjustifiable” surely you mean directly intending to kill an unborn child is always a gravely disordered act but the culpability may be reduced?

Yes.

We may of course indirectly intend to kill unborn children as an unfortunate consequence of a life saving medical procedure on the mother and that would be justifiable. In that case we would not call it murder or abortion… rather a life saving procedure.

Kinda…we may accept the death of the fetus as an unintended result of a necessary procedure. I’m not comfortable with the phrase “indirectly intend”.

I don’t see how you can possibly speak for me or the other millions on the planet re their conscience sorry.

What is the conscience? If it is merely what we believe then while it can surely differ from one person to the next it has no relation to the truth. Truth is the same for us all whether or not we recognize what it is.*It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of **the **divine law: *(CCC 1778)
There can be only one divine law. If your conscience perceives it and mine does not then my conscience is mistaken; it is not properly formed. There may be valid reasons why my conscience is incorrect, but the fact that it is malformed surely doesn’t (necessarily) excuse the actions I perform that accord with it.

Correct, but is it always a moral fault is the real issue.

Not always, but neither is it always excused.

You mean the formation of the conscience is imperfect surely?

I believe it that a conscience not in accord with divine law is wrong. How can we know what divine law is? A fundamental claim the church makes is to possess that knowledge. It seems unreasonable for a Catholic to believe the church possesses some knowledge of divine law, but is wrong in the areas where she disagrees with him. It seems likely that a Catholic who is wrong about divine law because he disagrees what the church has told him it is will be culpable.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is not necessarily a sin to go against ones conscience, because it may be deformed.

This has been one of the major sticking points: 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.
According to this I condemn myself if I act contrary to what my conscience is telling me to do. You are quite right of course in noting that one’s conscience may be deformed, and the acts it condones may in fact be sinful.

Although you said the converse, I believe you agree with what the catechism states below.

Catechism1786 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.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. …

I do agree with this. What this doesn’t address is whether the reason for the formation of an erroneous conscience will excuse or reduce our culpability for the sinful acts it causes us to commit.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Obviously a person has moral obligations, and it is wrong to fail to meet them. But I do not believe a person has a moral obligation to act as the result of the certain judgment of his conscience. He can do nothing or at least not act in an evil way.

I probably agree with this. The exhortation to love is non-specific as to means and degree. However, I suspect our souls may not remain as white as the driven snow when we pass-by on the other side of the road.

But Thomas - the first part of the first question I put to you was not about acting on conscience, but rather refraining: "Would the Dr (notwithstanding her conscience sanctioning abortion - perhaps it even exhorting her to it…) be obligated to refrain from abortion in deference to unequivocal Church doctrine? Apologies if I’m mistaken - but I don’t think you’ve answered this.

 

[Rau]

The fact that this concept is so obscure, is this not a problem in and of itself with regards to accountability?

No. God does not hold the one who genuinely seeks the good accountable for honest mistakes.

 

[Rau]

…A fundamental claim the church makes is to possess that knowledge. It seems unreasonable for a Catholic to believe the church possesses some knowledge of divine law, but is wrong in the areas where she disagrees with him. It seems likely that a Catholic who is wrong about divine law because he disagrees what the church has told him it is will be culpable.

Which is kind of why I believe prudence demands we accede to definitive Church Teaching regardless of what conscience may appear to say. Surely this is the prudent course if we have - as a given - that conscience may err.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not necessarily a sin to go against ones conscience, because it may be deformed.

I do not think so.
Even the old manuals used to say,
*"In its innermost essence conscience is “the internal and proximate rule
of human conduct” and to act deliberately against its dictates is always sinful, because such conduct involves a denial of ethical personality, — a sort of moral self-annihilation.

The first principle of morality, therefore, is this: Always obey your conscience, for to act against its dictates is invariably a moral fault"*

I do not believe theology talks about a “deformed” conscience.
It cannot be deformed, only “ignorant” or doubtful or scrupulous or certain.
The ignorance may be culpable (vincible) or inculpable (invincible).

If the ignorance is vincible then there is no moral fault in the following of the certain conscience (one can do no else) … but there is fault in not taking trouble to better inform oneself of the issue I n question.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If it is merely what we believe then while it can surely differ from one person to the next it has no relation to the truth. Truth is the same for us all whether or not we recognize what it is

What nonsense, how can any intelligent person hold this.
Nobody sees the absolute truth of particulars, it is always interpreted through the lense of our own limitations.
That is why truth is the same yet we all see it differently to some extent.
Just like the elephant and the four blind men.
Its not rocket science.

I believe that a conscience not in accord with divine law is wrong.
Ender

By “wrong” do you mean in error, ignorant or morally evil?
I believe you will find it is not possible for conscience to be morally evil because it is primarily an intellectual power.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I probably agree with this. The exhortation to love is non-specific as to means and degree. However, I suspect our souls may not remain as white as the driven snow when we pass-by on the other side of the road.

But Thomas - the first part of the first question I put to you was not about acting on conscience, but rather refraining: "Would the Dr (notwithstanding her conscience sanctioning abortion - perhaps it even exhorting her to it…) be obligated to refrain from abortion in deference to unequivocal Church doctrine? Apologies if I’m mistaken - but I don’t think you’ve answered this.

I really do not understand why the voice of conscience, which can be as close as most of us get to a command of God, cannot ever require us to do so something positive (which may in fact be disordered and thus erroneous) omission of which would then constitute moral fault.

If the law says all female adulterers should be stoned then as the village elder I have to see it done as it is my responsibility.

 

[Rau]

I really do not understand why the voice of conscience, which can be as close as most of us get to a command of God, cannot ever require us to do so something positive (which may in fact be disordered and thus erroneous) omission of which would then constitute moral fault.

Thomas raised that issue (that conscience does not obligate an act) and seems to have thought much about it - perhaps better to ask him.

I deduce from your remark that a person ought not feel obliged to refrain from an act that is proscribed by definitive Church doctrine (of which they are fully acquainted), if the voice of conscience calls them to do that act. It’s an interesting perspective - the person (presumably) knows that his conscience can err, but nevertheless should favour it over definitive church doctrine.

 

[Vico]

This has been one of the major sticking points: 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.
According to this I condemn myself if I act contrary to what my conscience is telling me to do. You are quite right of course in noting that one’s conscience may be deformed, and the acts it condones may in fact be sinful.
I do agree with this. What this doesn’t address is whether the reason for the formation of an erroneous conscience will excuse or reduce our culpability for the sinful acts it causes us to commit.

Ender

Certain judgement. A deformed conscience or on opposing the Church is not a certain judgement.

 

[Rau]

Certain judgement. A … conscience … opposing the Church is not a certain judgement.

That’s interesting. Why do you say that Vico?