ADDRESSED BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOUC CHURCH REGARDING CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF THE CHURCHS MORAL TEACHING
Published in the N. 40 (1310) 6 October 1993 edition of LOSSERVATORE ROMANO
II. Conscience and truth
54. The relationship between mans freedom and Gods law is most deeply lived out in the heart of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican Council observed: In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Rom 2:14-16). 101
The way in which one conceives the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound up with ones understanding of the moral conscience. Here the cultural tendencies referred to above - in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry - lead to a creative understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Churchs tradition and her Magisterium.
55. According to the opinion of some theologians, the function of conscience had been reduced, at least at a certain period in the past, to a simple application of general moral norms to individual cases in the life of the person. But those norms, they continue, cannot be expected to foresee and to respect all the individual concrete acts of the person in all their uniqueness and particularity. While such norms might somehow be useful for a correct assessment of the situation, they cannot replace the individual personal decision on how to act in particular cases. The critique already mentioned of the traditional understanding of human nature and of its importance for the moral life has even led certain authors to state that these norms are not so much a binding objective criterion for judgments of conscience, but a general perspective which helps man tentatively to put order into his personal and social life. These authors also stress the complexity typical of the phenomenon of conscience, a complexity profoundly related to the whole sphere of psychology and the emotions, and to the numerous influences exerted by the individuals social and cultural environment. On the other hand, they give maximum attention to the value of conscience, which the Council itself defined as the sanctuary of man, where he is alone with God whose voice echoes within him. 102 This voice, it is said, leads man not so much to a meticulous observance of universal norms as to a creative and responsible acceptance of the personal tasks entrusted to him by God.
In their desire to emphasize the creative character of conscience, certain authors no longer call its actions judgments but decisions: only by making these decisions autonomously would man be able to attain moral maturity. Some even hold that this process of maturing is inhibited by the excessively categorical position adopted by the Churchs Magisterium in many moral questions; for them, the Churchs interventions are the cause of unnecessary conflicts of conscience.
56. In order to justify these positions; some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called pastoral solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a creative hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.
No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and Gods law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this creative understanding of conscience.
The judgment of conscience
57. The text of the Letter to the Romans which has helped us to grasp the essence of the natural law also indicates the biblical understanding of conscience, especially in its specific connection with the law: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15).
According to Saint Paul, conscience in a certain sense confronts man with the law, and thus becomes a witness for man: a witness of his own faithfulness or unfaithfulness with regard to the law, of his essential moral rectitude or iniquity. Conscience is the only witness, since what takes place in the heart of the person is hidden from the eyes of everyone outside. Conscience makes its witness known only to the person himself. And, in turn, only the person himself knows what his own response is to the voice of conscience.
58. The importance of this interior dialogue of man with himself can never be adequately appreciated. But it is also a dialogue of man with God, the author of the law, the primordial image and final end of man. Saint Bonaventure teaches that conscience is like Gods herald and messenger; it does not command from Gods authority, like a herald when he proclaims the edict of the king. This is why conscience has binding force.103 Thus it can be said that conscience bears witness to mans own rectitude or iniquity to man himself but, together with this and indeed even beforehand, conscience is the witness of God himself, whose voice and judgment penetrate the depths of mans soul, calling him fortiter et suaviter to obedience. Moral conscience does not close man within an insurmountable and impenetrable solitude, but opens him to the call, to the voice of God. In this, and not in anything else, lies the entire mystery and the dignity of the moral conscience: in being the place, the sacred place where God speaks to man.104
59.Saint Paul does not merely acknowledge that conscience acts as a witness; he also reveals the way in which conscience performs that function. He speaks of conflicting thoughts which accuse or excuse the Gentiles with regard to their behavior (cf. Rom 2:15). The term conflicting thoughts clarifies the precise nature of conscience: it is a moral judgment about man and his actions, a judgment either of acquittal or of condemnation, according as human acts are in conformity or not with the law of God written on the heart. In the same text the Apostle clearly speaks of the judgment of actions, the judgment of their author and the moment when that judgment will be definitively rendered: (This will take place) on that day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rom 2:16).
The judgment of conscience is a practical judgment, a judgment which makes known what man must do or not do, or which assesses an act already performed by him. It is a judgment which applies to a concrete situation the rational conviction that one must love and do good and avoid evil. This first principle of practical reason is part of the natural law; indeed it constitutes the very foundation of the natural law, inasmuch as it expresses that primordial insight about good and evil, that reflection of Gods creative wisdom which, like an imperishable spark (scintilla animae), shines in the heart of every man. But whereas the natural law discloses the objective and universal demands of the moral good, conscience is the application of the law to a particular case; this application of the law thus becomes an inner dictate for the individual, a summons to do what is good in this particular situation. Conscience thus formulates moral obligation in the light of the natural law: it is the obligation to do what the individual, through the workings of his conscience, knows to be a good he is called to do here and now. The universality of the law and its obligation are acknowledged, not suppressed, once reason has established the laws application in concrete present circumstances. The judgment of conscience states in an ultimate way whether a certain particular kind of behaviour is in conformity with the law; it formulates the proximate norm of the morality of a voluntary act, applying the objective law to a particular case.105
60. Like the natural law itself and all practical knowledge, the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality. The dignity of this rational forum and the authority of its voice and judgments derive from the truth about moral good and evil, which it is called to listen to and to express. This truth is indicated by the divine law, the universal and objective norm of morality. The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law and of the practical reason with reference to the supreme good, whose attractiveness the human person perceives and whose commandments he accepts. Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-à-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the correspondence of its decisions with the commands and prohibitions which are at the basis of human behaviour. 106
61. The truth about moral good, as that truth is declared in the law of reason, is practically and concretely recognized by the judgment of conscience, which leads one to take responsibility for the good or the evil one has done. If man does evil, the just judgment of his conscience remains within him as a witness to the universal truth of the good, as well as to the malice of his particular choice. But the verdict of conscience remains in him also as a pledge of hope and mercy: while bearing witness to the evil he has done, it also reminds him of his need, with the help of Gods grace, to ask forgiveness, to do good and to cultivate virtue constantly.
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 favour of an 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 ones actions.
Seeking what is true and good
62. Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin. 107 In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience.
Certainly, in order to have a good conscience (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be confirmed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be clear (2 Tim 1:3); it must not practise cunning and tamper with Gods word, but openly state the truth (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians: Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2).
Pauls admonition urges us to be watchful, warning us that in the judgments of our conscience the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance, an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is unable to overcome by himself.
The Council reminds us that in cases where such invincible ignorance is not culpable, 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.
63. In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a subjective error about moral good with the objective truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.108 It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a nonculpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).
Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin.109 Jesus alludes to the danger of the conscience being deformed when he warns: The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Mt 6:22-23).
64.The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the heart converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2), knowledge of Gods law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of connaturality between man and the true good.110 Such a connaturality is rooted in and develops through the virtuous attitudes of the individual himself: prudence and the other cardinal virtues, and even before these the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. This is the meaning of Jesus saying: He who does what is true comes to the light (Jn 3:21).
Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful 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 science is never freedom from the truth but always and only freedom in the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium
et spes, n. 16.
In IlLzbrum Sentent., dist. 39, a. 1, q. 3, conclusion: Ed.
Ad Claras Aquas, II, 907b.
Address (General Audience, 17 August 1983), n. 2: Insegnamenti,
VI, 2 (1983), 256.
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Instruction on Situation
Ethics Contra doctrinam (2 February 1956):
MS 48 (1956), 144.
Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificarnem (18 May 1986), n. 43: MS
78 (1986), 859; cf. Second Vatican Ecmnencal Council, Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes,
n. 16; Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae,
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World Gaudium et spes, n. 16.
Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 17, a. 4.
Second Vatican Ecumenical Coun cii, Pastoral Constitution on the Churc
in the Modern World Gaudium et spes n. 16.
Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theologiae, 11-Il, q. 45, a.
Declaration on Religious Freedo Dignitatis humanae, n. 14.
|2001 Catholics Against Contraception|