Last week, Pope Benedict addressed the Roman Curia in anticipation of Christmas (the entire speech is here.) The speech covered many topics – the Year of the Priest, his trip to England, the sex abuse crisis, the Middle East Synod – but I wish to focus on one aspect of his address, that of conscience, on the occasion of the beatification of John Cardinal Henry Newman.
The driving force that impelled Newman along the path of conversion was conscience. But what does this mean? In modern thinking, the word “conscience” signifies that for moral and religious questions, it is the subjective dimension, the individual, that constitutes the final authority for decision. The world is divided into the realms of the objective and the subjective. To the objective realm belong things that can be calculated and verified by experiment. Religion and morals fall outside the scope of these methods and are therefore considered to lie within the subjective realm. Here, it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria.
The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart.
The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him. His third conversion, to Catholicism, required him to give up almost everything that was dear and precious to him: possessions, profession, academic rank, family ties and many friends. The sacrifice demanded of him by obedience to the truth, by his conscience, went further still. Newman had always been aware of having a mission for England. But in the Catholic theology of his time, his voice could hardly make itself heard. It was too foreign in the context of the prevailing form of theological thought and devotion. In January 1863 he wrote in his diary these distressing words:
“As a Protestant, I felt my religion dreary, but not my life – but, as a Catholic, my life dreary, not my religion”.
He had not yet arrived at the hour when he would be an influential figure. In the humility and darkness of obedience, he had to wait until his message was taken up and understood. In support of the claim that Newman’s concept of conscience matched the modern subjective understanding, people often quote a letter in which he said – should he have to propose a toast – that he would drink first to conscience and then to the Pope. But in this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth.
I excerpted this portion as an example of how succinctly the Holy Father explains the difference between how the Church defines conscience, and how the World views it. Sadly, Catholycs here and abroad latch onto the erroneous, worldly view while attempting to co-opt Blessed Cardinal Newman’s words (which Pope Benedict mentions, for obvious reasons) in order to support their claims. In the space of several paragraphs, Pope Benedict undermines their arguments.
In the coming weeks, I will be taking an in depth look at the recently released updated and revised American Catholic Council’s “Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” – 10 statements on which they hang their theological hats and build their case for their upcoming Council in Detroit, in June of 2011. The Holy Father’s words will help form the foundation of my analysis – which is why I posted them.
Here are the ACC’s Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities:
Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (rev. December 15, 2010)This is a foundational document of the American Catholic Council and will be a central element of the agenda at the national gathering of the ACC in June of 2011. The Planning Committee has been developing this document over the last two years and is pleased to share this latest revision, reflecting much input from the grassroots during some 50 local/regional listening sessions to date.
1. Primacy of Conscience. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to develop an informed conscience and to act in accord with it.
2. Community. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in a faith community and the right to responsible pastoral care.
3. Universal Ministry. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and to respond to the community’s call to ministerial leadership.
4. Freedom of Expression. Every Catholic has the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent.
5. Sacraments. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in the fullness of the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.
6. Reputation. Every Catholic has the right to a good name and to due process.
7. Governance. Every Catholic and every Catholic community have the right to a voice in the selection of leaders and in the manner in which governance and decision making are exercised.
8. Participation. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to share in the interpretation of the Gospel and Church tradition.
9. Councils. Every Catholic has the right to summon and speak in assemblies where diverse voices can be heard.
10. Guarantee of rights. Church leaders shall respect the rights and responsibilities of the baptized and their faith communities.
“Primacy of Conscience” will be analyzed first – I’m not sure when I’ll have it published, so please be patient with me.
I wish you well in your current magnum opus. Your posters, if they haven't done so already, may wish to read Cardinal Newman's entire lengthy discussion of conscience – particularly as found in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk – with specific attention to section 5.
Relatedly – as you begin to take your sedgehammer to the American Catholic Council (which I support and would have planned to attend if my wife were better able to travel) two other works of Newman are appropriate: Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (from his Anglican period); and On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.
All of these works relate to why organizations such as Call To Action and Voice of the Faithful (as well as the American Catholic Council) have come into existence following Vatican II. I am member of all of them (although I have been careful to avoid flying through Nebraska airspace so as not to incur temporary excommunication.)
An interesting irony: The Vatican was successful in removing Thomas Reese from America Magazine; and because of his writings and conflict with English Catholic Cardinals, Newman was forced to resign from the Rambler. Interesting.
I wish you well,
Peace,
JoeK
Watch the ACC define “well informed conscience” to mean that they can do whatever they want even if it goes against the magesterial teaching of the Church. #8 in particular is evidence for me of that.
Looking forward to your analysis. But short analysis of the whole thing. This is their latest attempt to set up their own Church that is in defience to God & the true Catholic Church founded by Jesus & led by the Holy Spirit.
The ironic thing is that all of these things with the exception of governance is in Canon Law of the Church.
Of course not to the ideas that these whackos want, but there are ways to be heard
Joseph Therese – exactly. What they want is already in Canon Law – which means there are other things in Canon Law (and doctrinal teaching) that they don't like. Therefore – they have to put on this big ACC show.
jk:
Would you be referring to this part of LDN, Chapter 5 ?
” let us see what is the notion of conscience in this day in the popular mind. There, no more than in the intellectual world, does “conscience” retain the old, true, Catholic meaning of the word. There too the idea, the presence of a Moral Governor is far away from the use of it, frequent and emphatic as that use of it is. When men advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. They do not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they demand, what they think is an Englishman's prerogative, for each to be his own master in all things, and to profess what he pleases, asking no one's leave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it, if they had. It is the right of self-will. “
BTW, I've read some issues of “The Rambler” and putting it in the same category as “America” is terribly unfair to the former, as the former, adventuresome as it seemed to some 19th century bishops, had a sense of respect for Christian history which the latter, from all I've seen, lacks.
To Narwen: I meant all of the letter and all of section 5, including “duty of obeying conscience at all hazards.” And the oft quoted (sometimes mistakenly) last sentence of section 5.
Add to this words of then Cardinal Ratzinger in his commentary on Vatican II: “Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
Pope Benedict may have changed some of his rationale – maybe it's a development of his teaching. It's good to be Pope!
I bring this up because a lot of the discussion on formation ofconscience will take place in the context of church magisterium -and outside infallible pronouncements there is leeway as the Church moves through history and changes its teaching views. It is very complex – and I rely strongly in this analysis on a book almost 30 years old: Magisterium, by Francis Sullivan, S.J. It is a good, but sometimes dense, summary of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and the faithful's obligation vis-a-vis that authority.
Lastly – you trivialize the Rambler and don't give enough value to America Magazine.
I'll admit to limited knowledge of “America”. However, I don't see how what I said about “The Rambler” trivializes it at all.
Comparing Newman to Reese is unfair to Newman. At least when Newman resigned, he refrained from bashing the Church and the Pope and traditional Church teaching. Reese can't help himself it seems.
And from what I've read and learned of Sullivan, at the very least, he dissents from Church teaching on women's ordination. So, I don't think I'll rely on him, thanks all the same.
Sullivan also taught Richard McBrien. By his fruits ye shall know him…
I hope the analysis tries to interpret whatever can be interpreted in line with the thinking of the Church, in line with the thinking of the Church. Then it will be clear where this list disagrees with the thinking of the Church, and hence is in error.
Two more rights the absence of which surprises me: the right of Catholics who are ultimately dissatisfied with the Catholic Church to go elsewhere or form their own conventicles outside the Catholic Church, and the right of the rest of us to some peace and quiet.
Larry, all this is conditioned on the notion that these people wish to think. Most dissenters do not wish to think, or think very deeply. (To be fair, your average Catholic has not been taught to think and apprehend Truth either).
The whole “primacy of conscience” presupposes one has informed one's conscience first and continues to do so. It is not enough to say “I disagree”, one must continually seek after the Truth and not just one's own preferences.
Let's see that quote again:
“At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart.”
Since the Church is the guardian of the deposit of the faith and has had a couple of thousand years to think about it, I'd say odds were on her side regarding Truth.
LarryD: of course you wouldn't rely on Sullivan. You continue to insist that every word from Rome is infallible. You won't even look into those who are recognized canon lawyers and theologians with continued faculties at Catholic Universities.
To Nod: it has nothing to do with what some wish to think. Once you get beyond actual Gospel revelation there is a lot to think about.
I don't see America magazine as bashing the Church. But of course you relate Church to Rome and not all of the baptized. Please read Newman again and see what the “faithful” really means in his article on the role of the faithful in determining doctrine.
Finally – none of us are “these people.” We have a right to express and live out our moral imperatives according to our conscience. Our infallible core is very basic. Everything else is subject to magisterium, theological and “sensus fidelium” discussion.
And if you have a problem with Fr. McBrien (yeah!) perhaps you can explain why he is still credentialed as a theologian at a Catholic University.
And, if your only criticism of Fr. Sullivan is what you claim – God help us. Please try to read his treatise. Then we can discuss.
Peace,
Joek
You continue to insist that every word from Rome is infallible.
Nope – not every word – just the infallible ones.
You won't even look into those who are recognized canon lawyers and theologians with continued faculties at Catholic Universities.
“Recognized” by whom? Which “Catholic” universities?
But of course you relate Church to Rome and not all of the baptized.
I never said that.
We have a right to express and live out our moral imperatives according to our conscience.
No one said we don't.
Our infallible core is very basic.
Our “infallible core” is the Natural Law imprinted upon our hearts by God.
Everything else is subject to magisterium, theological and “sensus fidelium” discussion.
Everything else? Me thinks not.
And if you have a problem with Fr. McBrien (yeah!) perhaps you can explain why he is still credentialed as a theologian at a Catholic University.
I can't explain that – and neither can you. But according to a friend of mine who has two daughters in attendance at ND, the only course he teaches is a graduate level one that students following a particular program have to take. He doesn't teach undergrad, and very few, if anyone, volunteers to take his class. He's effectively marginalized at ND – as he should be.
And, if your only criticism of Fr. Sullivan is what you claim – God help us.
My claim can be backed up – and since he's wrong on that, I'll err on the side of prudence and presume he could be wrong on other stuff, too.
Please try to read his treatise.
Nope – not interested in his opinion. And I only have so much time on my hands, so I'll be relying on other authors.
Then we can discuss.
Gee, you sure are generous on other people's blogs. But I must graciously decline your kind offer and not discuss Sullivan.
jkkamera – I deleted your last comment. Stating that Pope JP2 protected Fr. Maciel crosses a line.
JoeK states the problem very well. He implies that his conscience is an 'infallible core'. I don't know anyone who taught this, but many people act as if they think this. St Thomas teaches that we are obliged to follow our conscience, but he goes on to say that our conscience may be wrong. My conscience is not an infallible core.
ps St Thomas opined many things, as do modern doctors, but they only become matters of faith when taught by legitimate teaching authority.
LarryD – I did think you would delete my post. However – you stated my position in your deletion.
I have no idea why my comments are “over the line.” There is ample evidence of my position. The diocese in which I lived for 20years before I retired and moved to Florida was one of the first to document complaints against Fr. Maciel to the Pope no later than the early 80s. Additionally, multiple evidence on priests' sexual abuse was presented to the Pope over decades. Maybe you can claim that the Pope really wasn't aware – or didn't believe the complaints – but they were there.
I give Pope Benedict credit – he tried to do something about Maciel as head of the CDF but apparently was thwarted. Finally – towards the end or JPII's reign he was able to remove Maciel.
There are plenty of photos and documentation to support JPII's support of Maciel – well after credible reports of his abuse were in the Vatican.
Sorry – I wasn't over the line.
Peace,
JoeK
I believe that the Holy Father makes an artificial distinction, in a manner very similar to the worldly distinction he decries.
There is an absolute truth. It is man's duty and joy to seek it, and to develop a state of obedience. Why? Because it IS the truth. Conscience is not “what feels good to me right now.” Conscience is knowing the right thing to do, and having the courage to do that.
The spiritual dimension is not subjectivity, but the ultimate objectivity. It is what it is, totally beyond our poor power to add or detract, to bend or shape. How we feel about it doesn't matter at all.
Indeed, it cannot be measured, weighed, calculated, and verified. Therefore, we should not confuse human law, enforced by peer pressure and/or coercion, with the ultimate spiritual truth. The fact that science cannot measure and weigh spiritual truth does not render decisions of conscience subjective. It simply delineates the limits of science.
The limits of science are the limits of human reasoning and testing. Spiritual matters are not subject to earthly authority. They are between the individual and God, not because God will let us roll our own, or write our own ticket, but because it is God's truth, not man's. Why does my conscience not inform me to follow Cardinal Newman's example? God knows.