Conscience and binding teaching.

The following is a comment on "Conscience: A reason for dissent?" by David Dooley in our May, 1998, issue, p. 6. One heading in the article reads, "Does conscience override binding teaching?" That is a good question, says the author. One might even consider it the question when it comes to conscience. The comments fit in with our reflections on The Winnipeg Statement of September 1968.

In Robert Bolt's play, A Man for all Seasons, he has a scene where Cranmer, Cromwell, and Norfolk are trying to convince Thomas More to swear to the Act of Succession. In a bid to get him to sign, Norfolk shows him a copy of the Act bearing a long list of signatures of the people who have accepted it. In frustration, he says, "But damn it, Thomas, look at those names . . . . You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?" Thomas' famous reply is, "And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

St. Thomas' reply expresses the Catholic understanding of our obligation before God to follow our conscience, but it raises the question: if an individual does the right thing by following his or her conscience, how can the actions that flows from such a decision not be right?

David Dooley's quotation from The Splendor of Truth provides a partial answer. In this quote, John Paul II makes the point that individual conscience does not have "the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly." In short, because I think something is right, does not make it right and no one can justify himself or herself by simply saying, "I thought what I did was right; therefore, the action I took was moral and good." But if following my conscience can lead to error, how can the Church teach I am obliged to follow it? Given the above considerations, what does the obligation to follow one's conscience entail?

Taking responsibility

It is my contention that the obligation of following one's conscience consists in the obligation to take responsibility for one's actions whether those actions are mistaken or not. In other words, I acknowledge that I am the one responsible for this action. I take the credit for it if it is good and accept the responsibility of making reparation for any damage my mistakes may have caused, if I have been in error.

It seems to me that this also sheds some light on the issue of "informed conscience." Some people would say that to have an informed conscience it is enough to take cognizance of the Church's teachings on an issue. After that, provided one is acting in good conscience, one is free to embrace whatever action may be deemed appropriate--even action contradicting the Church's teaching.

The most basic norm in Catholic moral teaching is: do good and avoid evil. The purpose of conscience is to guide us to choose what is good and help us to avoid doing what is evil.

But a problem remains. As indicated in Pope John Paul II's quote from the Splendor of Truth, merely thinking something is true does not necessarily make it true. That is: my own subjective judgment is not a certain norm for determining what the truth is. How can I avoid the pitfalls of self-deception or mistaken judgment and error?

Sin of omission

Whenever God gives us a task, he gives us the means to carry it out. What has he provided to help us knowing what is truly good? The Magisterium of the Church is the guide that will save us from self-deception or error in judgment. Anyone who rejects such a God-given means is adopting a course of action that can only be termed rash, dangerous and, ultimately, sinful.

If a person sins against conscience, what kind of sin does that individual commit? A person who is convinced that a particular erroneous course of action is right and does it, must make reparation for any damage caused by such an error. This is nothing other than taking responsibility for one's actions. The next requirement is to take steps to see that the mistake is not repeated.

If a person is convinced of the rightness of a necessary course of action, an action completely in harmony with God's law, and does not do it, that person is guilty of a sin of omission. The gravity of the sin is determined by the importance of the issue in question. If rejection of the teaching of the Church is involved in the above mentioned commission or omission, disobedience is one of the sinful actions involved. But, to my mind, the basic sin with regard to conscience is always one of refusing to accept one's responsibility to seek to do what is truly good. It is a refusal to commit oneself to the pursuit of the good by following the path of truth.

I offer this because it is a point I have never seen raised with regard to the issue of conscience. It is my hope that it does offer something positive to the discussion.

Congratulations for the good work you are doing. Yours is a significantly important voice in the Catholic Church at this time.

Fr. Albert Lalonde was formerly editor of Our Family magazine, published from North Battleford, SK, by the Oblate Fathers. He writes to us from his present location on Vancouver Island, B.C.