Steve B

Hi Fr. Angelo,

Thank you also for joining this discussion.

I would like, however, to make a clarification in this discussion wrt to my stance as a “traditionalist” Catholic….

In all truth I feel myself “caught in the middle”, so to speak, between embracing the “best” things of the pre-Conciliar Church and the “best” things of the post-Conciliar Church - in my mind at least, what Pope Benedict touts as a “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Just the fact that I’m even willing to truly engage with you, Katie, in this discussion on “conscience” and “religious liberty”, hopefully that says a lot wrt my not being what you might typically think of a “traditional” Catholic, eh?  Although, perhaps my doggedness and reluctance to concede a point too readily perhaps do?  ;-)

I have come to embrace many of the things so well promoted by the Church since Vatican II - e.g. TOB (albeit not the Chris West version of it), daily prayer & Scripture reflection, a “personal” relationship with Christ, etc. - although I can also see the serious harm that many of the post-Conciliar reforms have caused to the faithful. 

As well, I have come to clearly recognize the absolute beauty and treasure that the Church has had all along in the Traditional Mass, traditional forms of piety, its much stronger emphasis upon spiritual discipline, and what I consider a more balanced liturgical emphasis upon the sinfulness of humanity, God’s Justice, and our utter dependence upon him to remain faithful, vs. God’s Mercy towards us.

I, unlike many “traditionalists”, DO NOT advocate at all any notion to completely “repudiate the last 40 years” as Fr. Angelo so aptly put it. 

In brief, I see myself more and more each day as what I would term a “von Hildebrandian” Catholic, who embraced the positive effects of Vatican II, but who also continued to warmly embrace and appreciate and promote the traditional pre-Conciliar spiritual heritage of our Catholic faith….

I do think that you, Father, have articulated so well that prudence is perhaps THE issue most in need of promotion thoughout the Church today.  I do believe that Dr. DvH would strongly support you in your perspective.

However, given as you said Father that catechesis is the foundation needed for putting prudence into action, and speaking from only my own experience, we “traditionalists” do get regular catechesis at least from the pulpit (and we’re strongly encouraged also to pursue growing in the faith further on our own time). 

At least in my own diocese, and I strongly contend that mine is not unusual at all here in the USA, regular catechesis is unfortunately not found routinely anymore at most typical (i.e. non-traditional) Catholic parishes.  I would say that that issue alone (although not the only one) compelled my wife and I to fully invest our family in a “traditional” FSSP parish 30 miles from home, rather than continue participating in our former run-of-the-mill parish a mere 6 minute drive away.

Sorry to diverge this conversation a bit with this personal relection.  But, I just wanted to toss out a bit of perspective on how I see the Church today, and why I see these issues of “conscience” and “religious liberty” as utterly intriguing and as topics of vital importance in which fair-minded and orthodox Catholics of all persuasions need to come to agreement - especially since they directly impact how our faith “hits the road”, so to speak, for how we should evangelize our faith to the entire world.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

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,

I will look forward to your new post that will excerpt John Crosby’s thoughts on this topic.

I think we agree that conscience and human dignity are ultimately built upon the foundation of Divine Law. 

That being the case, isn’t it crucial that Church to say something definitively wrt which religion gets the final say in what the Divine Law IS, not to mention what “conscience” is???

It seems utterly lacking from my point of view that DH made declarations wrt “conscience” and “religious liberty” without clearly explaining them in light of traditional Catholic teaching.

But then again, in reading the above mentioned book on the history of Vatican II, that’s exactly what many of the Council Fathers wanted - i.e. to merely make a declaration without doctrinal elaboration.  That seems to be a VERY poor prudential decision….

Perhaps someone new can step into this discussion and help steer it in a direction which is helpful?

Thanks again for all your efforts, despite the deadlock we seem to have reached.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

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

Hi Katie,

Although these paragraphs in the Catechism don’t explicitly use the terms “englightened conscience” and “darkened conscience” as I have, they do seem to substantiate my implications above.

For instance, it may well be the case that for you your conscience is 99.9% “enlightened” and only 0.1% “darkened”, while for yours truly mine is at 95% “enlightened” and 5% “darkened” - I’ll readily concede that you are more saintly than me, since you’re so charitably putting up with me in this discussion!  ;-)

For those who promote the “pro choice” agenda, perhaps their consciences may be only 70% “enlightened” and 30% “darkened”?  Certainly the balance would get worse, depending upon how “militant” they are at promoting their horrible agenda….

I do honestly think that in the “Parable of the Weeds and the Wheat” in Matthew 13:24-30 it would not be unreasonable at all to infer that it could be directly applicable to the wheat being the “enlightened” portion of our conscience and the weeds being the “darkened” portion of our conscience.

Your serve!  ;-)

Paragraphs 1790 - 1794 of the Catholic Catechism seem to be the most objective and succinct means perhaps to clarify this:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

  The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.

Hi again Katie,

Ooops!  I just noticed, Katie, that you replied while I was drafting my next comment.  Sorry that I missed your reply before I posted this below….

I want to provide some compelling reasons why I think that my questions above are reasonable and crucially need an answer in this discussion….

Below is a quote from pg. 164 of a book that I have, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - A History of Vatican II” by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen S.V.D., which seems to strongly imply that the definition of “conscience” you provided Katie from Card. Newman does not necessarily construe that it is the only one recognized by the Catholic Church. 

The following quote was from Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the Secretary of the Holy Office during Vatican II - the equivalent of what today is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (for those of our readers - think of then Card. Ratzinger, before he was elevated to the Papacy) - speaking about the original but yet unratified draft of Dignitatus Humanae (emphases below are mine):

But the text was guilty of exaggeration in stating that “he is worthy of honor” who obeys his own conscience.  It would be better to say that such a person was deserving of tolerance or of respect and charity.  “The principle that each individual has the right to follow his own conscience must suppose that that conscience is not contrary to the divine law,” he asserted. 

Thus, what Card. Ottaviani said above seems to imply that there ARE two types of “conscience”:

A) an “enlightened” type - in which the human mind does correctly apprehend and conform to the Divine Law, and

B) a “darkened” type - in which the human mind does not correctly apprehend nor conform to the Divine Law.

I don’t know if that is “official” Church teaching, but that’s my take on what I read.

Note also that the concerns of Card. Ottaviani expressed above were NOT addressed in the final, ratified, and promulgated draft of Dignitatus Humanae!

As perhaps the most prominent Secretary in the Vatican Curia at that time, surely Card. Ottaviani would have had a clear and full grasp of what the Church could mean and teach by the term “conscience”, wouldn’t you say Katie?

For him to have had such strong objections to the language in Dignitatus Humanae, which ended up NOT getting properly clarified in the final draft of the document, seems to give proper weight and merit to the concerns that we “traditionalists” have long had with the ambiguous language used in Dignitatus Humanae….

What do you think Katie?  Where do we go from here?  We’re back to disagreeing on the definition of the term “conscience”.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie (or anyone else who is well-educated on this topic and inclined to comment),

Can you elaborate on to tie what Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Gousset, you, and the Church mean by “conscience” with the passage that I posed to you in our sideline discussions from St. Paul in Romans 1:21-23 ?

“... for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks.  Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.  While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.”

Since, as you quoted from Card. Newman that the Divine law “as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called ‘conscience’”, what are those areas in our “darkened” minds called, which St. Paul taught in the above passage?  Are those dark areas of our mind called something other than “conscience”? 

When via our free will we act out in ways consistent with those dark areas of our minds, what else can those actions be called besides “following one’s conscience”, even though they are in no way at all following the Divine Law?

Obviously, those who promote the “pro choice” agenda have their minds appreciably darkened wrt the Divine Law on the sanctity and dignity of human life - i.e. their minds have been grossly malformed, distorted, and/or deluded.  I’m sure that we will agree on that conclusion, right?

So, doesn’t the Church have the DUTY to teach that they (and anyone else who promotes such blatant and objective falsehoods) do NOT have the moral right to publicly spread their errors? 

This is what I and my “traditionalist” cohorts have been and still are struggling mightily with, in trying to reconcile with traditional Church teaching before Vatican II the seemingly ambiguous (at the very least to us) Church teaching on “religious liberty” in the Vatican II document Dignitatus Humanae.

Thanks SO much for your wonderful blog, and for making the effort to bring up this topic and discussion on “conscience” to your TPP forum!

Best wishes, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Jules,

Looks like a very interesting book - one I will definitely add to my “books to read” list….

Question though - in his “Christianity” chapter, does de Lubac cover the apparent paradox between the dignity of the human person & our call as Christians to “die to self”? 

This, sometimes, is difficult for Christian believers to articulate to non-believers.

If de Lubac doesn’t address this particular “paradox” head-on in this particular book, do you know of where else he does, or anyone else who does?

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Lauretta,

This is perfect!

Thanks SO very much for making the effort to both find this excerpt, as well as to type it up and make it available for all to read.

I will be awaiting word from my local library to hear if/when they will be able to get this book for me.  If this excerpt is indicative of the entire book, then I can hardly wait to read it in its entirety!

Thanks again for your efforts on my behalf!

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX