(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
Conscience
Fr. William Most
Is conscience a small still voice, the voice of God? Not exactly. If it were the
voice of God, there could never be an error - but errors are far from rare.
Rather, conscience is a judgment of reason on the morality of acts to be done
here and now, or acts done.
God is involved in the sense spoken of in Jer 31:33:
"I will write my law on their hearts". This is echoed in Romans 2:15, where St.
Paul says of the gentiles who do not know revealed law: "They show the work of
the law written on their hearts".
Modern anthropology shows that primitive people have a remarkable knowledge
of the basic things in the moral law. However, this can be blotted out by bad
customs of the tribe, or by faulty instruction in schools, e. g, when the
children are taught, "Values Clarification" which says that if something feels
good, it is good, or by such things as proportionalism, which says there are no
moral absolutes, no act is good or bad by its nature: we must consider, they
say, the intentions and circumstances. Intention, they say, can make any act
morally permitted. These views of course are strongly condemned by the
Encyclical Veritatis splendor of Oct 5, 1993.
So, there are some things wrong by their very nature. Aristotle, who thought
morality depended on a golden mean, e.g., courage is a middle position between
rashness and timidity, yet said that there are things to which the mean does not
apply: murder, adultery, theft (Ethics 2. 6).
So conscience, since it is a judgment of reason, and not the voice of God, can
err. There are two kinds of errors, vincible, and invincible. Vincible error is
that which can and should be avoided or corrected. Invincible at least
practically cannot.
To avoid error, conscience must follow the teachings of the Church. Vatican II
did not change this. In Constitution on Divine Revelation #10: "The task of
authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on
[Scripture or Tradition] has been entrusted exclusively to the living
Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus
Christ." This does not clash with what is said on the Declaration on Religious
Liberty #3: "A man should not be forced to act against his conscience. Nor
should he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in
religious matters." But that declaration has in mind force from the civil state.
It taught there is religious liberty - which does not mean a right to be wrong,
but just a right not to be jailed etc. for wrong religious beliefs. This does
not change what was said in On Revelation # 10, just cited, for the On
Revelation text does not refer to force by the state but to divinely protected
teaching from the Church, which operates by the authority of Christ. In fact
even the Declaration on Religious Liberty # 1 says: "It [this document or
council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine about the obligations of
men and societies towards the one true Church." This really calls for an
established Church, supported by the State -not however in such a way that the
State prohibits other religions.
So a man should follow his conscience, but before that point, he has a strict
moral obligation to align his conscience with the law of God as taught by the
Catholic Church under divine protection. He may not say: "But I think
differently, my conscience tells me something else". To such a one we quote Mt.
18:15-17, which tells us that when a Christian does wrong, we should first
correct him privately, then, if need be, with the help of two or three
witnesses. But then finally, call in the church: "If he will not hear the
Church, let him be to you as a pagan and a publican." The man in question may
not appeal to his conscience. He has the obligation to line that up with the
teaching of the Church. If he refuses, then we treat him like a pagan and a
publican, not like a Catholic who is just exercising his rights. For the
Catholic Church is not a democracy, in which the authorities must dialogue with
persons. Yes, all should be done in a pastoral and kindly way. But when all is
done, the bottom line is: he must accept the teaching of the Church. Hence the
Epistle to Titus says (3:10): "After one or two warnings, avoid a heretical
man." The word heretical here is not yet as technical term: it means anyone who
holds false doctrine and refuses to hear the Church. He is to be considered as
Mt 18:17 says, as a pagan and a publican.
Suppose a man wanted to call himself a Mason, but broke with basic Masonic
teachings. He would not be a real Mason at all. Similarly, one who does not
follow the above teachings of the Catholic Church, especially that in On
Revelation #10 really should not call himself/herself Catholic, but Protestant.
For Protestants follow private interpretation, each one decides for himself.
Catholics follow the Church.
Suppose a man get a false notion that it is mortally sinful to eat a banana? We
should of course try to correct his thinking. If we cannot, and if after that he
eats a banana, he is guilty of mortal sin, not because eating a banana is mortal
sin, but because of his bad faith.
May we turn this around as it were and say that if a man cannot be convinced
that something, e.g., contraception, is sinful, he is justified? Not
objectively. Subjectively if he cannot be brought to see the truth, he may not
contract the formal guilt for contracepting. This, sadly, can happen today, when
there has been and is so much false teaching even by priests and bishops on this
matter and other things too. But no priest may knowingly give Holy Communion
etc. to such a one, if his sin is publicly known. (Eucharist may be refused only
to public sinners, not to those who sin outside of public). Nor may we tell him:
If you think it is all right, it is all right. Cf. Leviticus 4, where several
cases are given in which a person violates the law of God without knowing he is
doing something wrong at the time of acting. When he finds out, he is obliged to
offer a sacrifice to make up for even unwitting violation. God punished Pharao
and his household severely for the fact that the King, in good faith, took the
wife of Abraham: Genesis 12:17.