The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Blue_Horizon]

To have a certain judgement of conscience that aborting is a good act ought be very difficult for an informed catholic. I would think the knowledge that the Church holds definitive doctrine opposed to abortion, that holds it is always wrong, is likely to mean that an actor’s claim to a certain conscience favoring abortion cannot be **right. **

Unless you use words accurately it is difficult to know what you mean.
If by “cannot be right” you mean “an erroneous conscience” then of course yes … but its a trivial observation most here agree with surely.

But whether that error is due to prior vincible (culpable) or invincible (not culpable) ignorance is another matter.

By the way I said “**assisting **in abortion” which is a far greyer area.

Do you believe that merely externally hearing a rule is enough to “form” conscience such that acting contrary becomes culpable from that point forward?
I would think some form of internal assent would be needed for formation to have succeeded and if it is not given we need to enquire as to the reasons for this and whether they are culpable or not.
The final contrary act of a certain but erroneous conscience does not come out of the blue.
Conscience and long deliberation and reflection walk hand in hand I would think. Its rarely a matter of “duh, I never heard that teaching before how could I have done this.”
Are conscientious objectors only born the moment they are forced to enlist as a cowardly quick rationalisation to try and get out of the draft?

Perhaps their judgement that the act would be good is a balance of probabilities assessment not rising to the level of “certain”. It is easy to understand why one could be well advised to follow doctrine. To doubt fallible conscience in favour of definitive church doctrine is not unreasonable.

Obviously, but this just skirts the question. Can such a person ever have a balance of probabilities closer to certitude than doubt.
The Church has never taught that such certitude is not probable certitude and has to be absolute certitude.
Practical judgements are always probable, absolute truth is never recognised…though Ender likely disagrees. That is why we call such certitude “moral certitude”.

 

[Ender]

So what extent of alms giving to the poor and suffering is necessary to avoid sin? That which satisfies conscience?

That’s a valid question, but it is a different one. To say that the conscience can compel us to act in a specific manner in some cases says nothing about how it compels us in all cases.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…if the individual (especially a Catholic) is aware of church doctrine prohibiting a particular act, but commits it anyway, is it possible to consider his ignorance invincible?

Well of course, if this were not true we would all accept your interpretation of Church Teaching! This is exactly what we have been arguing over for the last 6 months isn’t it .

However I would take you up on your understanding of “a doctrine prohibiting a particular act.” You no doubt think that this pertains to all particular, concrete, material actions of all individuals in any situation. It doesn’t. Though conscience does.
Such Church doctrines may condemn as morally evil all of certain particular types of “human acts” in themselves NOT all concrete, particular behaviours that men may do (also known as “the actions of a Man”).

That is why re “abortion” (a doctrine about certain human acts in themselves) I deliberately described the material behaviour involved as “killing an unborn foetus”. It is surely the very job of conscience (and prudence) to assist any given individual in deciding whether this material activity in this situation is an example of “abortion” or a “legitimate procedure” or “self defence”. In short this is where conscience may be erroneous and sometimes non culpably so. Most of us know the doctrines, and even assent to them, but which one applies in this concrete circumstance? It is easy enough to see how even Catholics can think the life of the mother overrides that of the child and they would not call it abortion.

We know vincible ignorance includes the willful decision not to search for the truth, so what kind of ignorance is it that finds the truth and rejects it, which would be the case of a Catholic who knows what the church teaches but rejects it in favor of his own understanding? I don’t think there is a good argument to be made that it is invincible ignorance.

Does a person actually “know” something if they never internally assented to its truth in the first place?

Must I leave the Church if I have never internally assented to the alleged truth that women are intrinsically incapable of being made priests? Does that mean I have rejected the authority of the Church, of Christ? I don’t think so. But if the Pope told me it was a break or make issue then my conscience would surely demand I leave. All perfectly logical if unfortunate. However I don’t think the Church forces membership penalties re conscience decisions on most teachings.
It does on abortion of course, which involvement incurs auto-excommunication, which is fair enough.

The second point goes to Thomas White’s objection that the conscience can only compel us not to act negatively, but cannot compel us to act positively. The following is an example of being compelled by the conscience to act.Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn’s personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew* he had a responsibility to enter that Church***.
I think any number of examples can be imagined, but this one from real life seems sufficient to make the point.
Ender

I tend to agree with you on this point but I always find it hard to get my head around double negatives.

I think we all agree that an act of omission still an “intentional act” capable of moral analysis just like any deed of commission.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are any number of reasonable sounding arguments for having an abortion in particularly difficult situations. If a woman found herself in one of those situations it could easily seem that abortion was the better solution, that choosing not to have one would engender hardship not just for herself but others as well. If she believes that an abortion is not a sin, and that having one is the better option for all concerned, what is the argument that she should ignore her conscience and not have the procedure? Her conscience is telling her (erroneously) that the lives of those most intimately associated with her (obviously not including the fetus) would be better if she has the abortion. How is she not culpable for acting (by choosing not to have the abortion) in a way she believes will be harmful to others?

The conscience can compel us to act, where not acting would be a sin. What else would constitute a sin of omission?

Ender

Your vocab is getting in the way of a clear analysis and discussion.
I tend to see “abortion” as by definition an intrinsically grave disorder which can never be voluntarily pursued.

But I can also see that some of the procedures described above may not be seen as abortion by the one involved. They may see it as self defence PODE situation.

BTW I was actually taking one step back to those who might assist in such procedures (e.g. a parent) rather than the mothers themselves.

 

[Rau]

Unless you use words accurately it is difficult to know what you mean.
If by “cannot be right” you mean “an erroneous conscience” then of course yes … but its a trivial observation most here agree with surely.

Can’t be that unclear, you got it in one go. The “erroneousness” - or likelihood of erroneousness - ought be evident to the actor. Therefore…how should they respond?

By the way I said “**assisting **in abortion” which is a far greyer area.

I omit comment other than to assume we are as one if the act is performing the abortion.

Do you believe that merely externally hearing a rule is enough to “form” conscience such that acting contrary becomes culpable from that point forward?

It would seem adventurous for a Catholic to hold fallible conscience over trust in Christ’s Church to proclaim the truth in definitive doctrine.

The Church has never taught that such certitude is not probable certitude and has to be absolute certitude.

The article you quoted and endorsed set the bar considerably higher than “balance of probabilities”. Considerably.

 

[Rau]

Well of course, if this were not true we would all accept your interpretation of Church Teaching! This is exactly what we have been arguing over for the last 6 months isn’t it

There is not much room for interpretation when we stick to the abortion example I gave in post #129. The moment you introduce scenarios of lack of knowledge, uncertainty about whether the act contemplated is in fact the act proscribed, etc, you stray from the topic at hand.

PS. The real Dr Perl (post #129) may well have acted on a self-defence line of thinking. I don’t know. I varied the “story” so that it was on-point for this discussion.

 

[Rau]

…But I can also see that some of the procedures described above may not be seen as abortion by the one involved. They may see it as self defence PODE situation.

Then such is out of scope for this discussion. The individual is unaware of the Church’s teaching on abortion…that the Church unequivocally declares there is no self-defence claim, and there is no circumstance where one may licitly choose to pursue the death of the unborn for itself or for some benefit arising from said death.

 

[Thomas_White]

The second point goes to Thomas White’s objection that the conscience can only compel us not to act negatively, but cannot compel us to act positively. The following is an example of being compelled by the conscience to act.Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn’s personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew* he had a responsibility to enter that Church***.
I think any number of examples can be imagined, but this one from real life seems sufficient to make the point.

Ender

No one has said that a person cannot act in a way to which his conscience would find no fault and to which he believes he has a moral imperative to act. But these are judgments of pure reason.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can’t be that unclear, you got it in one go. The “erroneousness” - or likelihood of erroneousness - ought be evident to the actor.

I wish I could understand your point.
By definition a “not right” (ie erroneous) certain, conscience is unable to be identified as erroneous by the agent at the time of the decision making. But the action at that moment is “the right one” (as in “good”) to make because one may not act against one’s certain conscience. If there is any moral fault it will not be rooted in this deed but in the prior culpable ignorance if it is vincible.

It would seem adventurous for a Catholic to hold fallible conscience over trust in Christ’s Church to proclaim the truth in definitive doctrine.

Not sure what this means. Though I see no intrinsic reason why we cannot assent to the authority of one over us yet not agree with the truth of every utterance. I was in that position re my father all the time as a teenager as no doubt were most of us. Often enough I proved to be correct, yet I still honoured him all my life and obeyed him while under his roof.
I see Church authority as little different in that regard.

The article you quoted and endorsed set the bar considerably higher than “balance of probabilities”. Considerably.

Give me a percentage figure that is certainly morally certain then .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is not much room for interpretation when we stick to the abortion example I gave in post #129. The moment you introduce scenarios of lack of knowledge, uncertainty about whether the act contemplated is in fact the act proscribed, etc, you stray from the topic at hand.

Been there, done that, it wasn’t about a reasonably educated Catholic.
As I say, there are some procedures many Catholics would not consider to be rightly called “abortion”. eg a life of the mother versus the child scenario. If I was told one had to die and the doctor was asking me to choose I am currently morally certain what I would choose. And that answer may not be in accordance with the principles that mainstream Catholicism seems to teach.

That position is not fixed, I reflect on it regularly … not that it is possible any more in my current wife’s case but who knows the future.

 

[Vico]

Again I would suggest this is a complete misunderstanding of the word “certain” as used in moral theology re conscience. That is if you are referring to a “certain judgement of conscience” (certain conscience)

Likewise your use of the word “deformed” which I have never seen used as an adjective re conscience in moral theology texts. The correct word is either ignorant or erroneous I believe.

Hence the expression “a certain but erroneous conscience” is perfectly acceptable…and it must be followed. One must also endeavour to correct it if legitimate authority suggests it is erroneous.

Where are you sourcing your views on conscience?

My understanding is correct I believe. Catechism on certain judgement:

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

Deformed is misshapen and can be used as contrary to properly formed. It is not necessary to use a limited vocabulary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My understanding is correct I believe. Catechism on certain judgement:

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

Can you actually explain your point, you simply quoted the CCC I myself paraphrased against your view?

Surely you are not suggesting that by:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience"

you think the Magisterium really means

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his [correct] conscience"

That would be a most extraordinary slip-up if that was really what was meant by 1790.

Deformed is misshapen and can be used as contrary to properly formed. It is not necessary to use a limited vocabulary.

My 4 year old child can start using the word “doodacky” too but if it isn’t associated with the context at hand communication is not possible.

Why not choose a more specific word (than “deformed”) that actually is used in conscience discourse so we may really know what you mean.

It seems likely adjectives of choice would be “ignorant (vincible or invincible)”, “not well formed”, “erroneous.”

“Deformed” suggests the faculty itself has been “corrupted” by the agent in his own past.
It is rightly said that Original Sin corrupted the faculty of the intellect resulting in being born into ignorance (and concupiscence re the faculty of the Will)…so it is likely possible to speak of the Fall corrupting the faculty we call conscience which is afterall associated primarily with the intellective faculty.

However to say that past acts of the agent himself can further corrupt this faculty seem unlikely - all the more so as it is not any part of any teaching on conscience I have ever read even by the unorthodox.

So I do not believe that is the right word to use when speaking of the agent himself.
Churcvh Teaching only speaks of the poor formation of the conscience - not corruption of the conscience itself.

And the result of poor formation is always described by the adjective “ignorance” which can lead to “erroneous” judgements. And that poor formation may be culpable (vincible ignorance) or nonculpable (invincible ignorance).
It really is that simple on these points.

 

[Rau]

Been there, done that, it wasn’t about a reasonably educated Catholic.

The scenario was. You just chose to sidestep the question be omitting that part of the scenario as I presented it.

If I was told one had to die and the doctor was asking me to choose I am currently morally certain what I would choose. And that answer may not be in accordance with the principles that mainstream Catholicism seems to teach.

Or it may. Unless you had in mind a murder.

 

[Vico]

Can you actually explain your point, you simply quoted the CCC I myself paraphrased against your view?

Surely you are not suggesting that by:

you think the Magisterium really means

That would be a most extraordinary slip-up if that was really what was meant by 1790.

My 4 year old child can start using the word “doodacky” too but if it isn’t associated with the context at hand communication is not possible.

Why not choose a more specific word (than “deformed”) that actually is used in conscience discourse so we may really know what you mean.

It seems likely adjectives of choice would be “ignorant (vincible or invincible)”, “not well formed”, “erroneous.”

“Deformed” suggests the faculty itself has been “corrupted” by the agent in his own past.
It is rightly said that Original Sin corrupted the faculty of the intellect resulting in being born into ignorance (and concupiscence re the faculty of the Will)…so it is likely possible to speak of the Fall corrupting the faculty we call conscience which is afterall associated primarily with the intellective faculty.

However to say that past acts of the agent himself can further corrupt this faculty seem unlikely - all the more so as it is not any part of any teaching on conscience I have ever read even by the unorthodox.

So I do not believe that is the right word to use when speaking of the agent himself.
Churcvh Teaching only speaks of the poor formation of the conscience - not corruption of the conscience itself.

And the result of poor formation is always described by the adjective “ignorance” which can lead to “erroneous” judgements. And that poor formation may be culpable (vincible ignorance) or nonculpable (invincible ignorance).
It really is that simple on these points.

The Church is infallible on defined matters of dogma and morals, so it is an error that the conscience is autonomous from such teaching of the Church. The conscience can error and so must be properly formed over the lifetime. There are all taught in the Catechism:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; …

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. …

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

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. …

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.

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

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Rau]

I wish I could understand your point.
By definition a “not right” (ie erroneous) certain, conscience is unable to be identified as erroneous by the agent at the time of the decision making.

Definitive Church doctrine must surely play into the judgement of conscience. How can such doctrine not detract from the “certainty” of a contrary judgment? It’s not rocket science Blue.

Not sure what this means.

See above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church is infallible on defined matters of dogma and morals, so it is an error that the conscience is autonomous from such teaching of the Church. The conscience can error and so must be properly formed over the lifetime. There are all taught in the Catechism:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; …

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. …

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

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. …

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.

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

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

Somehow you see things in the text that aren’t there.
To ascertain this you need only consult the car’s “Mechanics Manual” rather than the “Driver’s User Guide.”

The points you seem to misunderstand are:

• what is meant by “autonomy” and which forms are acceptable.
• that a certain conscience must be followed…and that does not exclude an erroneous certain conscience…if it did I think the CCC would have been rather clear on that important point somehow.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How can such doctrine not detract from the “certainty” of a contrary judgment?

Because you don’t seem to understand what “certainty” means here.
Missing advertence to doctrine is primarily a matter of ignorance (ie error) and only secondarily possibly a matter of “certainty”.

A classic case of confused categories.

If you don’t know that you don’t know then one can be certain even when in error (invincibly ignorant).
If one knows that one doesn’t know then one cannot be certain (vincibly ignorant) as its a contradiction in terms. Which is why vincible ignorance implies some culpability.

Just as has been previously discussed.

 

[Vico]

Somehow you see things in the text that aren’t there.
To ascertain this you need only consult the car’s “Mechanics Manual” rather than the “Driver’s User Guide.”

The points you seem to misunderstand are:

• what is meant by “autonomy” and which forms are acceptable.
• that a certain conscience must be followed…and that does not exclude an erroneous certain conscience…if it did I think the CCC would have been rather clear on that important point somehow.

Looks clear to me.

 

[Ender]

Well of course, if this were not true we would all accept your interpretation of Church Teaching! This is exactly what we have been arguing over for the last 6 months isn’t it.

Not exactly, but I think it is now the key sticking point: whether a Catholic who knows what the church infallibly teaches and rejects that teaching can be considered to be invincibly ignorant of the truth.

However I would take you up on your understanding of “a doctrine prohibiting a particular act.” You no doubt think that this pertains to all particular, concrete, material actions of all individuals in any situation. It doesn’t.

That’s not my understanding. We are prohibited from committing acts that are intrinsically evil in all circumstances.

Regarding abortion, the term literally means only the loss of a fetal life. If the mother miscarries that is a spontaneous abortion, and clearly there is no moral content. In the context of this debate, however, abortion has been used to mean the intentional destruction of a fetal life. As for other procedures that are necessary for the mother that lead to the destruction of the fetus, they are not termed abortions even though the term technically applies. Let’s keep this simple and clear: what is identified by the church as the grave moral evil of abortion is the intentional destruction of a fetus.

Does a person actually “know” something if they never internally assented to its truth in the first place?

Assenting to a proposal is entirely different than understanding what it is. I know a fair amount about global warming, but I do not assent to many of the conclusions that have been reached. I know what is claimed. I reject it, and I surely know it better than many who accept it. My rejection no more demonstrates ignorance than acceptance demonstrates understanding.

Must I leave the Church if I have never internally assented to the alleged truth that women are intrinsically incapable of being made priests? Does that mean I have rejected the authority of the Church, of Christ? I don’t think so.

The church makes certain claims about herself, which if true, leave no room for dispute over what she infallibly teaches, and if not true means the church is not what she claims to be, and has no valid claim to teach the truth. It is at least not irrational to reject the church and all of her claims, but it seems a good bit less than rational for one to say he accepts her claims, but reject what she teaches anyway.

Either the church is what she claims - and what she infallibly teaches is true - or she is not what she claims, and there is no logical reason to believe she has any claim to the truth whatsoever.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Not exactly, but I think it is now the key sticking point: whether a Catholic who knows what the church infallibly teaches and rejects that teaching can be considered to be invincibly ignorant of the truth.
That’s not my understanding. We are prohibited from committing acts that are intrinsically evil in all circumstances.

Intrinsic evil is said to be an act that is contrary to reason, nature and God. For example, by definition, a truth is true and a lie is false and can never be true. Therefore, it is intrinsically evil to lie because what is true is good and what is intrinsically false is not. The difficulty is in defining an act that is intrinsic evil as necessarily and always a mortal sin.

There is also intrinsic motivation. Would it be a mortal sin to tell a lie to preserve human life?