Editorial
Following (or Ignoring) One's Conscience
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D
Sometimes it seems that we think of our conscience as if it were some sort of guage, that registers full or turns green when we do something that is good (or at least not bad), and shows empty or red when what we have done is bad. How often do we hear people say "my conscience is bothering me - in much the same way as one might say, 'my neighbour's dog is keeping me awake at night'?
Many people look on their conscience as a policeman who hauls them off to court if they have done something wrong, or recommends them for a medal when what they have done is good.
Ideas like the above have little connection with reality. Our consciences are moral faculties of judgment — to be consulted before acting, not afterwards. We are meant to follow them, not lead them around like tame tigers.
Conscience judges whether this act, this word, this thought, is morally good or not. If we follow our consciences after we have made all reasonable attempts to judge that what we plan to do or say is correct, then we will perform, from a moral point of view, what is a good act, even though someone else with greater knowledge, or a keener judgment, would have acted differently under the same circumstances.
Not everyone judges correctly. Often, many people lack the information necessary to enable them to judge at all.
Let us suppose that an illiterate person has found a bottle of iodine that is marked quite clearly, poison! He had never come upon such a thing before, and rather liked the colour of the liquid. Moreover, someone else as ignorant as himself, very pleasantly spoken, polite and a "sincere" person, told him that it was harmless.
He begins to drink the iodine.
Another friend sees him and tries to prevent him. They struggle, and the illiterate person breaks free, and rushes down the street clutching his bottle of poison. He want to perform what he considers to be a morally good act; to exercise his God-given freedom of conscience.
At the same time, onlookers know that he is about to kill himself. Because of his ignorance, his conscience is mistaken. We may know this, but we can't convince him of the fact.
Even though he may not be held blameworthy in the sight of God (of course, he should have heeded the warnings: why didn't he?) all the same, his action is going to be the cause of his death. This is as clear an example as one could desire, of an act that may be morally good, as far as we can tell, even though in itself it is quite wrong.
Our consciences are irreplaceable and delicate. They are necessary if we are to live truly human lives, and not be led into intellectual and moral dead-ends that at best will stifle our growth, and at worst will lead to an eternal "loss" situation.
An area where freedom of conscience is often appealed to, is that of religious liberty.
Vatican II on the subject
The Second Vatican Council produced a whole document on this subject. It should be helpful to summarise what it did and did not say, for few even among Catholics seem to understand its meaning.
It did not say, for instance, that we may believe whatever we like and still "save our souls". It did not say that we can attend any Church we like; that all Churches are the same; or, that provided a person be sincere then everything will be OK.
In the first place, it affirms the truth illustrated above: that if a person genuinely follows his conscience in religious matters, and genuinely tries to discover where the truth lies, then he will not be held responsible by God for whatever is erroneous in his thinking or acting.
Furthermore it declares that no one can be obliged by the State — any State — to worship God in a certain way. In other words no State can justly penalise someone for not belonging to a particular faith, nor can it offer advantages or incentives to someone ro believe in a particular way.
ln this modern world, where Church and State are so well-and-truly separated, this is a common-sense declaration of an obvious truth.
The late Bishop Muldoon pointed out some years ago that this document could well have been entitled "On the right of individuals and communities to civil liberty in the matter of religion".
This in no way detracts from the Catholic Church's constant belief that she possesses the fulness of truth; that she knows where Truth is to be found, and that she wishes all without exception to possess it.
Perhaps many, even the majority, through ignorance, or pride, or stubbornness or misunderstanding will not listen to her voice', perhaps many will suffer spiritual death as a result.
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is not some nineteenth century American revivalist "religion," playing a numbers game, counting its sheep, and fleecing them on the side. She is not interested in numbers or money or power or success as the world understands the term.
She will always "be there" — being what Christ called a light to the world, a leaven for the dough. Some may douse the flame, but it will never be put out. They may cover the light, but it will peep through and be seen by those who seek it. They may adulterate the leaven, but it will always affect the dough and make it rise.
St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) described a wise person as "one who seeks the truth, and not just any truth, but that Truth which is the origin of all truth, namely that Truth (God) that is the source of being of all things that exist. Things are insofar as they are true, and they are true insofar as they share in the truth of God." Contra Gentiles, 1,1. A person whose conscience is well formed, and who follows it, is such a wise person.
Truth is not relative, or subjective, or a matter of personal choice, no matter how many people think it is.
- PAUL STENHOUSE. M.S.C.
From "Annals Australia." March 1988.
Subscription Rates to "Annals Australasia" and "Catholic Answers to Bible Christians"
See "Annals Australasia's Un-official Home Page
What's New? at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page