www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Conscience

The conscience is the Law of God written on the heart. It is infallible. So says St Paul.

Moreover the Catholic Church has always held conscience to be ones ultimate guide. St Thomas Aquinas even stated that if a man could not in good conscience remain Catholic it would be a mortal sin for him to do so!

Jason

Jason,

I think Father Stephanos is correct about conscience objectively. Conscience cannot be infallible, if humans can make mistakes. QED. But, from the subjective side, what else do we have to go on but conscience? But it is not a power, it is a particular judgement whereby we apply the principle "Do good and avoid evil" to concrete actions of our own. I think that is the "doctrine" of St. Thomas Aquinas, so I wonder if he wasn't speaking about conscience from the subjective viewpoint in your paraphrase?

We all have an obligation to form our consciences so as to be able to make judgements of conscience that are true.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael,

Perhaps a further distinction is in order. If conscience is the law of God written on our hearts, how can it NOT be infallible? If it is not infallible then we have no subjective standard by which we may be judged guilty. St Paul is clear that the conscience either will accuse or excuse on the day of Judgment. However, your point is well taken...we are fallible creatures...yet that fallibility lies in our being finite and is complicated by the fact that we are sinners. What this means, imo, is that while our conscience does not and cannot err, we are not robots that must follow it's dictates. We have free will and we can choose to obey or not. Add on the fact that we are prone to sin and that our minds are "darkened" we cannot always read our conscience aright. This is not the fault of the conscience which cannot fail, but is due to our being more or less attentive to what it says.

St Paul speaks of the conscience being seared or suppressed. This indicates to me that it is a faculty that can be ignored at will and over time ceases to be heard clearly.

From this perspective, it is not the Church's role to "inform" the conscience, as though the conscience needed informing, but to affirm what the conscience already says. I fail to see how it can be any other way given what St Paul says in Romans about those who have no law being a law unto themselves.

Imo, it is a serious error to say that the Church tells the conscience what to believe. I think this amounts to an attempt to supplant what God has written on the heart with the opinions of men. The conscience needs to be affirmed...just as we need to be affirmed as persons. It doesn't need to be told what to do. It knows perfectly well what to do on it's own. It is also a mistake to say that the word of the Church takes precedence over the conscience as though the Church knows something that the conscience does not.

I believe Fr. Stephanos' objection confuses the mind with the conscience. "Voices in our heads" are not the product of conscience, but of social conditioning, mental illness, poor life choices, manner of life etc... Further, the conscience is not to be equated with "guilty feelings". The conscience does not punish..it informs. We choose to punish ourselves...often based on misinformation by external sources. This can be just as 'searing' to the conscience as deliberate, willful violations of conscience only it often goes with a stamp of approval by religious authorities.

This is all my opinion. Maybe it's not worth a hill of beans.

Jason

Jason

Conscience is not the full picture. To a degree Jason is right!
But our consciences have to be informed and that is where obedience to the Teachings of the Church come into play.
As St Paul also said the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.
Stephanos I
The Church teaches that conscience can indeed err.

Father, if our consciences have to be informed, then how do the pagans know the difference between right and wrong? I am not suggesting that the conscience can reveal theological truths such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Atonement etc... The conscience is largely irrelevant as far as theology is concerned. And in this regard, I agree with you. The Church has the responsibility to teach the objective content of the Faith. We cannot know this naturally because it is known only via divine revelation. And there is certain moral obligation to believe the doctrines of the faith. However, concerning morals, I do not believe the Church has anything to teach us that the conscience does not already know. We inherently know to obey authority, to not murder, to not commit adultery, to not steal etc. The judicial codes of both modern and ancient history attest to this fact. This is not a claim that all those law codes are perfect..they aren't...because there are always things other than conscience that come into play when making laws...such as power and control...and plain old politics. Yet the general character of these laws makes it clear that man inherently knows the law of God. Where we severely mess up is with Justice and Mercy...how to punish the wicked and reward the righteous. We know what is right and what is wrong...but we dont know what to do when the law is broken...so we make stuff up according to our "common sense" or "political expediency" or whatever our main motivation may be.

Yes the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth...but what does this mean? I think all to often it is taken to mean that the Church has a handle on the truth and whatever the Church SAYS is truth IS truth. Imo, the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth insofar as she is in line with both Divine Revelation and Conscience. When she agrees with both of these she speaks authoritatively. There is no guarantee that she ALWAYS does so.

I do not accept the notion that the Church is defined by the hierarchy or the magisterium or whatever one wishes to call it. The Church is the entire body of Christ...clergy and laity alike. It is not the clergy that has received the promise of divine guidance and the charism of infallibility. It is the whole Church...comprised of clergy and laity to whom this promise has been made. John Henry Cardinal Newman spoke of the "sense of the faithful"...the Orthodox recognize the responsibility of the laity in maintaining and defending the faith. I would say the Church speaks infallibly when she is in agreement with truth. She does not create truth, nor is something true because she said it. Divine Revelation is finished and the contents of it are complete. There is nothing "new" to reveal. Sure, there are an infinite number of applications of truth to make...in this sense our knowledge of the Truth expands. But the content never increases. It is the responsibility of the Church to study, learn and expound this divine revelation in accordance with conscience to the world.

Jason

On the subject of conscience I am more in line with Jason's thoughts. Below are some of my thoughts. Nothing I say is a teaching or meant to be construed as
me giving the churches own position. I find it 'works' for me .. that is all.


Keeping in mind that the Catholic catechism is not an infallible document .. it may contain some form of errors ... at times it is right (on the subject of conscience) and at other times it is mistaken regarding conscience.

We can take a look at some passages. The italics is mine.


Here is the correct definition of the word conscience as used by classical philosophy: It comes from the Latin {con: together} and {science: knowledge}. Adopted for use in theology ... it is the concept of a shared knowledge between God and a person. Both God and the person knowing the same thing together at the same time.

To be even more precise that knowledge is a science � which means it is true � and not false. God only knows one kind of knowledge � that knowledge which is true. He knows the essence of a thing because he created it. If that knowledge also exist in us (as shared to us by God) it is also true in us .. and can not be false. The science known by conscience is always true and never false. To carry that further: God only knows truth and does not know false � something false can not be a part of any knowledge which God knows.

Therefore: if something does not fulfill the requirement of the definition � it is not conscience but rather something else being mistaken for conscience.

As an example: if I hold an apple in my hand yet I believe it to be a banana (it is really an apple) ... God can only know the apple in my hand to be an apple ... and he does not know the apple to be a banana. We are not both sharing the same knowledge. God can not hold to be true ... what is false. He does not know the apple to be a banana. Therefore: whatever knowledge that can be 'known together' can only be true knowledge (science) and can not be false in either party. If our knowledge is not the same knowledge that God has � it is not conscience (shared science).

Using the proper definition the following quotes stand up pretty well.


I agree with this statement as to the fact that charity arises from conscience. Since ... it is God who enlightens conscience (give it knowledge) the part that says �conscience is enlightened by true faith� is a bit ambiguous .. in one sense it can be true and in another sense it could be false. It depends on what is considered to be 'true faith'.



The law within conscience is discovered. That is: it is un-covered. Found. One discovers an island ... one does not form an island and then say he has discovered it. The 'law' that is discovered � is not put there by man � it is put there by God through infused enlightenment. If a man does not pay attention to his conscience he will not discover the law that God puts there.



We do not (and can not) form or create or make this voice of God ourselves in any way. If we could � it would not be the voice of God but our own voice masquerading as God. We can (and often do) mistake for conscience other functions of our psychological mind which are not conscience. Conscience (man's most secret core) is a quality and function of our essential union (the essence of our be-ing) which is higher (or deeper in us) than our psychological mind with its reasoning and thoughts etc. Essential union is coined to express the concept of our be-ing and existence springing out from the mind of God.



This is true for all men regardless of religion. The judgments of conscience can not be false � that fact � is the mechanism which does not fail to lead us to the fact of God's existence (if we listen to it). We do have the freedom to deny enlightenment within conscience.



Written by who? The finger of God. God can and does 'speak' to every man within the sanctuary of his conscience. We have only to pay attention to conscience. Knowing God's will ... is not exclusive to any particular religion � in as much as God's will is directly available to any man who pays attention to his conscience and religion is the expression of those in a particular culture who have gone inside to journey toward conscience.


In the instances above - the catechism uses the term conscience fairly well.
However the following quotes use the word conscience according to another definition ... which is a common and a socially popular definition ... yet wrong according to classical usage and the usage above.

I will now give the 'other' definition which is operative for the remaining quotes.

Conscience: The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration. Motivation deriving logically (the use of thoughts and reason) from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions.




As you can see ... the operative definition here is a product of the mental reasoning and judgments of the superego according to rules and law of principles learned in some way. This kind of 'conscience' can be formed through training and learning the principles which are proposed. This kind of 'conscience' can also be false. It can be wrong (depending upon the validity of the principles and the logic of reasoning used to produce the judgment). Sine this kind of 'conscience' can be false � and therefore not a knowledge that God shares � it does not fit the definition of con{together) science. Therefore it is not conscience but something else. And it is produce within psychological mind (where reasoning takes place) and is not an infused enlightenment at the core of our essential being. It is also not infallible.

The mistake here is an identification of our be-ing (our I-ness) with our psychological mind which is a function of the biological body and formed by our experience of the senses. In psychology this is called ... the ego.

Reminder: Properly speaking � conscience is a shared knowledge - a quality of enlightenment (an act of God) infused directly into the intellect (which is not the same as our psychological mind). Conscience is the sphere of the intelligible (the essence of a thing) which, according to classical philosophy, an intelligible is the only 'thing' that we can receive infallibly because it is not received by way of the senses nor the psychological mind (both of which can be false).

Conscience is not a product of reasoning. Reasoning and logic are functions of the psychological mind. Conscience is not arrived at by acts of reasoning nor any function of the thoughts nor any operation of the psychological mind. Enlightenment can not be 'formed' initiated nor produced by us in any way. The judgments that conscience does have ... are God's own judgments and are not done by way of God having to reason things out. If conscience COULD be the product of reasoning (a function of our psychological mind) � what then happens to the quotes above where the tern conscience was used mostly correctly? Let us see what that result would be.

>�Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid
> upon himself but which he must obey.�
If conscience is a product of reasoning ... than man does not discover a law which he has not laid upon himself � he rather produces and creates the law (the product of his reasoning with learned principles) and lays it as a law upon himself.

> "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary.
>There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths"
If man's reasoning produces his conscience � and man's conscience can be wrong ... than the voice of God echoing in his depths � is a voice man himself has produced. Ity is not the voice of God.


This also, is not conscience � in as much as this portion implies that conscience can be not-well formed. Refer to the proper definition of conscience as God sharing his own knowledge (science) with us in our depths by way of enlightenment. If conscience is not well formed � than it is God who has failed to inform it well. So what is being talked about here in this portion is not properly conscience � but rather an ethical and moral judgment done within the psychological mind by way of reasoning using learned principles.

OF COURSE ... if we do not pay attention to our conscience ... we will cling to a substitute. We will not be able to 'hear' conscience well and we will mistake other functions (within the psychological mind) as conscience. Paying attention to conscious is not an activity of the analytical mind. It is rather a gaze � bound tightly to contemplation. What we contemplate within contemplation is God's presence within conscience � we face and sit with an existential experience of 'the light'. What we examine (with analytics) is within psychological mind (our logical and rule set) which are functions of the ego. Too tight a control and repression of the psychological mind (ego) will produce (depending upon the severity) delusions. Ego is not capable of fixing itself. Only conscience can fix ego back into its natural state, natural function, and balance.

I hope this helps but I fear it is like many of my posts � hard to read and easy to misunderstand. It is late and I can not look for typos.

Peace to all of good conscience.
-ray

So Ray. I have this question. Have you set yourself up over and above the Church as to what is right or wrong and what is true or false?
And I dont mean this as an offensive insult! It is just a question.
Stephanos I

Was Stalin's conscience infallible?

Pol Pot's?

Jeffrey Dahmer's?

Charles Manson's?

Everybody else's?

Dr. Eric,

Yes. Did they listen to it? No.

Fr Stephanos,

Would you mind defining what the Church is please? In your own words if possible.

Jason

I disagree.

Ok.

When .. and if .. the church and my conscience differ on some significant issue - I will do as my church teaches me to do ...

If my church tells me that I must follow my conscience or be condemned .. how can that be considered to be setting myself over and above the church .. when the church tells us we must follow conscience? So my answer to your question is .. no .. I would not be setting myself up over and above the church.

Saint Bonaventure put it well ..

Would it be your position that God can be wrong and untrue when he speaks?

Would it be your position that church authority is always infallibly right ... when it teaches what is right and wrong .. true and false?

-ray

Well the Church tells us that a properly formed conscience will never be in opposition to Church Teachings. If our consciences are conflicting with some Church Teaching, it obviously isn't completely and properly formed.

Alexis

You have named people who have specifically killed their own conscience (refused it). There are articles about Dahmer's childhood ... his father recollects that he realized (very early) that his son was missing a most basic human element - a conscience.

Stalin and Pol Pot tried to kill everyone's conscience .. both .. made religion and any initiative of personal conscience .. a special target for thier hatred. I would guess that you remember the basic tenants of Communism.

As your list is mostly composed of archtypes who refused all consceince ... I do not think it is reasonable to imagine that any one on your list acted from a mistaken of ill-formed conscience.

It seems to me that list has no bearing upon a question as to if conscience is infallible or not.

-ray