Amazon.com Widgets

 

Tags: relativism, objectivity of truth, conscience

Comments: 52

Katie van Schaijik

What is conscience 2

Mar. 25, 2010, at 2:12pm

See below for the 2nd part of the comments elicited by Katie's post on Conscience
comments (52) closed

Steve B • Mar 26, 2010 - 2:01 pm

Katie,

I agree with your analogies - we have only one conscience - but I think that the Catechism seems to strongly infer that it has “enlightened” aspects and “darkened” aspects.

Let’s take a radical example - a person who has “sold their soul” to the Devil, and who worships him.  While it’s commonly said that that kind of person “has no conscience”, I’ve also heard it said that that kind of person “has an evil conscience.”

Using the definition you are touting for “conscience” - i.e. that it is only what I am calling the “enlightened” part - what part of their personhood does that inherently evil person follow when they act out their evil intentions and wholeheartedly follow the voice of Satan?  What IS that called? 

I would call it a an “utterly darkened” or “completely blinded” conscience - the most extreme degree of what is stated in paragraph 1791 of the Catechism.

We’d best not go off on a bunny trail with our discussion arguing over the subjective philosophical/theological status of which Cardinals we each consider as great, as giants, or as barely more than competent.  That will get us absolutely nowhere.

All I was trying to imply wrt my discussion of Card. Ottaviani was that he expressed some of the VERY same concerns that we “traditionalists” do about the imprecise and ambiguous language used for “conscience” and “religious liberty” in Dignitatus Humanae.

Note that in Dignitatus Humanae it:

1) never even explicitly defined what it meant by “conscience” before it started using the term all over the place (it assumes that the reader already knows, or can figure it out for themself - which is a pretty ridiculous assumption, especially when your target audience is primarily non-Catholics!), and

2) that it never differentiated either about which religions it was talking about.

Does “religious liberty” apply just as equally to Muslims as well as Christians, even though in the religion of the former they believe absolutely radially different things wrt Divine Law?  Does every religion get to determine for itself what they consider Divine Law to be, in determining what “conscience” is?  This too is a glaring oversight, and in my opinion a woefully negligent deficiency, of Dignitatus Humanae….

All we “traditionalists” are asking for is a much more explicit and clear pronouncement on what the Church truly means and teaches by “conscience” and “religious liberty.” 

Are we ‘traditionalists” being REALLY all that unreasonable to urgently make this request, especially now when Islam is a such dominant force in the world right now???

I, and many other “traditionalists” too, are VERY thankful that the doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX are working toward that end.  On top of all the above reasons, the dissenters within the Catholic Church have misconstrued Dignitatus Humanae to their advantage long enough already, and that MUST come to an end!!!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Jules van Schaijik • Mar 26, 2010 - 2:51 pm

About your radical example, Steve.  I would say that a person who has sold his soul to the devil is not following his conscience at all.  His fault is not that his conscience is darkened, but rather that, such as it is, he has rejected it.

I strongly suspect that most abortion advocates are in the same position.  They are not following a badly formed conscience, but rather set it aside for things like money, power, prestige, and such like.

Steve B • Mar 27, 2010 - 1:39 am

Hi Jules,

Thanks for jumping into the discussion!

WRT my radical example, what would you use for a term to describe what this radically evil person is following?

If not the term “conscience”, then what?

I’d be fine with calling “conscience” what I have up to now been calling “enlightened conscience”, if you, Katie, Fr. Angelo, or anyone else could find an alternative term or definition for what I am calling “darkened conscience.”  I just don’t know what else to call it, or what the Church would call it - a radically evil person has to be following something inside of them too, the counter opposite of what you, Katie, and Card. Newman have been calling “conscience” for those of us with good will and good intentions.

As far as the abortion advocates, I would completely agree with you Jules that the prominent culture of death “brokers” do advance that cause for things like money, power, prestige, etc. 

However, I don’t think that is necessarily so for their “clientele” - I believe that these pursue it much more because their consciences have been “darkened” by society to such a degree, that they have been severely duped into following the COD “brokers.” 

That is why I also believe we who promote the culture of life can by our efforts still reasonably reach many of the COD “clientele”, but that reaching most of the COD “brokers” borders on requiring direct Divine intervention….

Katie van Schaijik • Mar 27, 2010 - 9:18 am

I hope Jules will jump in again later, Steve.  His dissertation was on this theme.  Just now he’s out biking in the glorious early spring Chester County countryside.

Basically those who disregard the moral law in their acting are acting in a fundamentally different way from those who act according to conscience.  They do not weigh their actions on a scale of right and wrong; they are thumbing their nose at right and wrong.  You could say they follow passion or inclination or ambition or self-will as the case may be. 
To follow conscience is to act to deliberately according to our honest apprehension of the moral law—which is according to what is morally right.  It is almost impossible to imagine that a person who commits a murder does it because he is sincerely convinced it’s the morally right thing to do.  If a person does think that, he can plead insanity in a court of law.

Jules van Schaijik • Mar 27, 2010 - 10:24 pm

It does not really matter what you call it.  St. Paul speaks about the spirit as opposed to the flesh, or of the two laws at war within him, the law of God vs. the law of sin.  Philosophers often use the contrast between reason and passion, and theologians oppose love to pride and concupiscence.

Conscience is the “organ” in man, which challenges him to be good and to live up to his high calling.  But it is not infallible. It can make mistakes.  Even when it does so, however, and this is the important point to see, “conscience does not lose its dignity, because even when it directs us to act in a way not in conformity with the objective moral order, it continues to speak in the name of that truth about the good which the subject is called to seek sincerely” (Veritatis Splendor, 62)

Reading circles

Lectures

Latest comments

  • Re: Two new items for my case against "unprincipled forgiveness"
  • By: Tim Cronin

  • Hi Katie, In John Milbank's "An Essay Against Secular Order" he talks about the reality of forgiveness. He says that without forgiveness being accepted and realized it does not have a true reality. Neither does forgiveness have a true reality if it is merely formal. Receiving forgiveness involves a complete realization of consciousness of egocentricity. This involves a suffering on the receipient of forgiveness. It also involves a suffering on the forgiver through the re-establishing of the bonds of the relationship. -Tim

    Jun. 13 at 3:11pm | See in context

  • Re: Mercies hurt
  • By: Samwise

  • The Eustace reference works well!

    I have heard Mark-- on the radio-- speak about Uncle Andrew too.  Together, Eustace and Uncle Andrew make for some of the most off-putting characters in Narnia, and can annoy readers to the point of wanting to imitate Edmund (of all people).

    On the radio, Mark pointed out the unrepentant nature of Uncle Andrew, exhorting listeners to  have "child-like faith' instead.  It was a good reminder that ingenuity and IQ are not all we're meant for.

    Jun. 12 at 11:42am | See in context

  • Re: The Least I Need to Do
  • By: CATHY ECHANIZ-BECK

  • Not in particular, Devra.  It's kind of fuzzy to me, too. :)  Just a general sense I had, of Ivan's feeling guilty and wanting to do better.  Ha!  I should re-read that one; it was good! 

    Jun. 11 at 11:55am | See in context

  • Re: The Least I Need to Do
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • I love the reminder that turning away from serious vice is "the beginning of freedom".

    The next big liberation, in my experience, is from illusions of rectitude and self-sufficiency. It's the willingness to face and absorb the truth about ourselves—especially our impotence to save ourselves, or even to live well.  

    It's painful, but definitely freeing.

    Jun. 11 at 11:53am | See in context

  • Re: The Least I Need to Do
  • By: Devra Torres

  • I'm not sure, but maybe.  Ivan Ilyich had his lists of "thou shalt not's," but they all had to do with what was and wasn't done in his social circle.   There's something like that in Anna Karenina, too, about how Vronsky stuck to his principles, which were "Never lie, except to a woman," and "Never fail to pay a debt, unless it's a gambling debt," and so on.  Crime and Punishment is pretty fuzzy in my mind, Cathy: is there some part in particular you're thinking of?

    Jun. 11 at 10:39am | See in context

  • Re: The Least I Need to Do
  • By: Marilyn Prever

  • Was it the one about the dying man who couldn't take the first step, which was to admit he was not a good man ad to ask for mercy.The Death of Ivan Ilyich or something like that?

    Jun. 11 at 9:01am | See in context

  • Re: The Least I Need to Do
  • By: CATHY ECHANIZ-BECK

  • Dev, 

    Were you thinking of Crime & Punishment by Tolstoy??

    Cathy 

    Jun. 11 at 8:26am | See in context

  • Re: Two new items for my case against "unprincipled forgiveness"
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • One of my favorite scenes in one of my favorite movies, On the Waterfront, is Terry and Edie's first date. Terry tells her his philosophy of life. It's every man for himself. Get the other guy before he gets you.

    She lives in a different world—a world where people are part of each other, where they care about each other, help each other, and call out the best in each other. She's asking for his help. He's drawn to her world, but finds her naive. He wants her to drop her pursuit of justice for her brother. Forget it. Move on. Enjoy life. Don't risk trouble.

    The conversation ends abruptly when he bursts out in frustration, "What do want from me, Edie?"  She replies, passionately: "Much more. Much, much, much more."

    Cardinal O'Brien sounds to me a lot like Terry. "I said I'm sorry. What more do you want?" The Vatican sound more like Evie. "Much much more."

    Much more from you and much more for you.

    Jun. 9 at 1:49pm | See in context

  • Re: It's Here!
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • Got it. Thanks, Devra!  Can't wait to read it.

    Jun. 7 at 8:42am | See in context

  • Re: Interview with Hannah Arendt
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • Rhett, I'm with you in lamenting that maddening gap between the depth and delicacy of the insight you think you have and the clunky unspecialness of what comes out when you try to put in it words.

    That's the negative experience of writing your thoughts. The positive experience is when you've struggled and struggled to say something, realized you're missing something key, and then suddenly seen what it is—something you wouldn't have seen if you hadn't made the effort to put it to paper, or screen.

    Jun. 6 at 9:44am | See in context

Latest active posts