From the Pastor
August/07/2009
In recent conversations and in the confessional, I’ve come across quite a number of people who say they “follow their consciences” in making moral decisions regarding their actions and that puts them at odds with traditional moral teachings of the Church, whether it’s concerning the use of artificial means of birth control, or abortion, or another major moral problem. Though it may seem “politically incorrect,” I’d like to set the record straight regarding the Church’s teachings on these matters.
Those who embrace the idea of “supremacy of the human conscience,” by definition discard objective truth, because the incorrectly formed human “conscience” is notoriously flexible, compromising and rationalizing when temptation strikes. Just as important, since a person whose conscience reigns supreme will inevitably fall into sin and then accept that sin, he will also be more tolerant of sin in others.
People who dissent from the teachings of the Church are very fond of quoting the Vatican II document on the “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (Dignitatis Humanae), in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our “conscience” does not object to. However, the late Jesuit theologian, Father John Courtney Murray, principal architect of that document, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. In a footnote to the text, Father Murray stated: “The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on “freedom of conscience.” Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, “that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it.” This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism – the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.”
Dissenters also conveniently neglect to mention paragraph #8 of the Declaration, which notes that “…not a few can be found who seem to be inclined to use the name of “freedom” as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience.” The correct connection between freedom and truth as it should be perceived by the conscience, and the role of the Magisterium (Teaching authority of the Church), is outlined in the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” (“The Splendor of Truth”) by Pope John Paul II (paragraphs #61-64):
[“Consequently “in the practical judgment of conscience,” which imposes on the person the obligation to perform a given act, ‘the link between freedom and truth is made manifest.’ Precisely for this reason, conscience expresses itself in acts of ‘judgment,’ which reflect the truth about the good, and not in arbitrary ‘decisions.’ The maturity and responsibility of these judgments (and, when all is said and done, of the individual who is their subject) are not measured by the liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favor of the alleged autonomy in personal decisions, but on the contrary, by an insistent search for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one’s actions.
Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience ‘in the Church and her Magisterium.’ As the (Second Vatican) Council affirms: ‘In forming their consciences, the Christian faithful must give faithful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and, at the same time with her authority, to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself.’ It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.”]
It can be said with good authority that dissenters don’t really believe that “all Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters,” because, when loyal Catholics “follow their consciences” and oppose abortion, homosexual marriage and contraception, their opponents will stridently condemn them and ridicule their views. For dissenters, the “glorification of conscience” is a mere smoke screen that they use to further their goals, much like their twist on the concepts of “non-judgementalism” and “tolerance.”
Very Rev. Canon Tom
Those who embrace the idea of “supremacy of the human conscience,” by definition discard objective truth, because the incorrectly formed human “conscience” is notoriously flexible, compromising and rationalizing when temptation strikes. Just as important, since a person whose conscience reigns supreme will inevitably fall into sin and then accept that sin, he will also be more tolerant of sin in others.
People who dissent from the teachings of the Church are very fond of quoting the Vatican II document on the “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (Dignitatis Humanae), in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our “conscience” does not object to. However, the late Jesuit theologian, Father John Courtney Murray, principal architect of that document, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. In a footnote to the text, Father Murray stated: “The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on “freedom of conscience.” Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, “that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it.” This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism – the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.”
Dissenters also conveniently neglect to mention paragraph #8 of the Declaration, which notes that “…not a few can be found who seem to be inclined to use the name of “freedom” as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience.” The correct connection between freedom and truth as it should be perceived by the conscience, and the role of the Magisterium (Teaching authority of the Church), is outlined in the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” (“The Splendor of Truth”) by Pope John Paul II (paragraphs #61-64):
[“Consequently “in the practical judgment of conscience,” which imposes on the person the obligation to perform a given act, ‘the link between freedom and truth is made manifest.’ Precisely for this reason, conscience expresses itself in acts of ‘judgment,’ which reflect the truth about the good, and not in arbitrary ‘decisions.’ The maturity and responsibility of these judgments (and, when all is said and done, of the individual who is their subject) are not measured by the liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favor of the alleged autonomy in personal decisions, but on the contrary, by an insistent search for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one’s actions.
Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience ‘in the Church and her Magisterium.’ As the (Second Vatican) Council affirms: ‘In forming their consciences, the Christian faithful must give faithful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and, at the same time with her authority, to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself.’ It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.”]
It can be said with good authority that dissenters don’t really believe that “all Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters,” because, when loyal Catholics “follow their consciences” and oppose abortion, homosexual marriage and contraception, their opponents will stridently condemn them and ridicule their views. For dissenters, the “glorification of conscience” is a mere smoke screen that they use to further their goals, much like their twist on the concepts of “non-judgementalism” and “tolerance.”
Very Rev. Canon Tom