What is Conscience?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drinkgasoline
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drinkgasoline

Guest
Hi all,

I haven’t posted anything in a while as work has been very busy lately, but in what spare time I have managed to gather I’ve been studying the various interpretations and views of conscience throughout theology, philosophy and psychology.

I have been fascinated by this topic and I was wondering what your views of the conscience are?

Synderisis?
Some sort of infused knowledge of God’s laws?
A psychological mechanism such as Fromm’s Humanitarian or Authoritarian theories?
The Aquinian idea of a God-given ability to reason between good and evil?
 
The best treatment of conscience I’ve come accross is Pope Benedict’s book, On Conscience. I recommend it if you haven’t already read it; it’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic of conscience. In it, he argues for the Scholastic understanding of conscience, which understood conscience on two levels: syderesis (which Pope B. prefers to call ‘anamnesis’) and conscientia, which Aquinas defines as a motive of operation.

The failure to make the distinction between the two ontological levels, the Pope argues, has resutled in a confusion in modern times between conscience and preference of the will.
 
hicetnunc said:
The best treatment of conscience I’ve come accross is Pope Benedict’s book, On Conscience. I recommend it if you haven’t already read it; it’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic of conscience. In it, he argues for the Scholastic understanding of conscience, which understood conscience on two levels: syderesis (which Pope B. prefers to call ‘anamnesis’) and conscientia, which Aquinas defines as a motive of operation.

The failure to make the distinction between the two ontological levels, the Pope argues, has resutled in a confusion in modern times between conscience and preference of the will.
Click to expand...
Fantastic! Thanks for the recommendation.

Could you please define for me what the Pope actually means by synderisis (or anamnesis), as scholars seem to have a varied definition.
 
Drinkgasoline said:
Hi all,

I haven’t posted anything in a while as work has been very busy lately, but in what spare time I have managed to gather I’ve been studying the various interpretations and views of conscience throughout theology, philosophy and psychology.

I have been fascinated by this topic and I was wondering what your views of the conscience are?

Synderisis?
Some sort of infused knowledge of God’s laws?
A psychological mechanism such as Fromm’s Humanitarian or Authoritarian theories?
The Aquinian idea of a God-given ability to reason between good and evil?
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 6, be sure to turn to the " next " page at the bottom of each page. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5Y.HTM
 
Hi DG:

Good topic!
Code: 
Ref: "Conscience in Conflict", Kenneth.R. Overberg S.J.
"…the personal self as it makes sound judgements about our basic moral questions, “What ought I to be?”, and “What ought I to do?”

From Vatican II council:

“The individual’s most secret core and sanctuary where one is alone with God.There
the person discovers a law inscribed by God to love, to do what is good, and to avoid evil”.
Code: 
Kenneth describes 3 dimensions of Conscience: In brief....

1/ The general sense of value 2/the search to discover the right course of action, 3/the actual,concrete judgement that we make pertaining  to an immediate action.

In his excellent book that addresses many questions, he goes on to describe the conscience of collectives, and ways of proper  discernment to ensure the implementation of a just *common good*.

The Church instructs us to properly hone the conscience, and through Christ's ministry
we find just the tool to ensure this. The conscience then is subject to degrees of effectiveness to serve, and is vulnerable to the kinds of decisions we make. So we can see that being alone with God, the conscience needs to be unblemished.

.
 
Do any of you find it fascinating how much the mighty Aquinas’ views differ to the other church scholars?
 
Drinkgasoline said:
Do any of you find it fascinating how much the mighty Aquinas’ views differ to the other church scholars?
Click to expand...
Do you have anyone in mind in particular? There are a number of Thomists out there keeping the mighty Thomas’ flame alive, but you are right of course…there are loads who are way off on many topics.

I was quite interested to read in Communio even Pope Benedict, when he was a Cardinal, criticising in quite strong terms Aquinas’ notion of person (in a footnote in a later edition, he attenuated his criticism somewhat, but he still favours Bonnaventure over Aquinas when it comes to the question of the nature of the person).
 
hicetnunc said:
Do you have anyone in mind in particular? There are a number of Thomists out there keeping the mighty Thomas’ flame alive, but you are right of course…there are loads who are way off on many topics.

I was quite interested to read in Communio even Pope Benedict, when he was a Cardinal, criticising in quite strong terms Aquinas’ notion of person (in a footnote in a later edition, he attenuated his criticism somewhat, but he still favours Bonnaventure over Aquinas when it comes to the question of the nature of the person).
Click to expand...
Well for example Jerome, Butler and Newman all have drastically different ideas on the topic, though you have to look a little closer to realise it. I think modern scholars especially aren’t very fond of the way Aquinas links almost everything back to Aristotle in some way.
 
The level of certainty a Catholic may have towards any teaching of the Catholic Church.

My point is that the speculation you may feel about a specific teaching of Aquinas may not be that critical to one’s obligation to believe it. So at least to me you would need to describe it specifically, then I would determine the necessity for it’s belief, then study the article. After this exercise we may conclude that Aquinas is merely expressing his right differ.

De Fide means “of the faith”. It means it is an article of faith and must be believed. A Dogma is a De Fide article of faith. In Catholicism, there exists what we understand to be a “hierarchy of truths”. Some doctrines have been formally defined by the Church (i.e. dogmas) and are essentially irrevocable and non-reformable. Other doctrines do not carry such a weight but are generally believed to be true by the majority of theologians.

Here is a list of levels of certainty.

De Fide - The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper. (Example: Anglican Order are invalid.)

Sententia Ad Fidem Pertinens - A teaching pertaining to the Faith is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions). (Example: An all male priesthood. Some may disagree and suggest that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible pronouncement on this issue.)

Sententia Fidei Proxima - A teaching proximate to Faith is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church. (Example: Mary as Co-Mediaterix)

Sententia Communis - Common teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. (Example: Christ’s soul possessed infused knowledge.)

Sententia Probabablis - Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded. Those which are regarded as being in a agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainity is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Example: Rigorist (strict) view of “No Salvation Outside the Church”, or the existence of Limbo.)

Ref: The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top