Authority/Conscience

Thanks to Steve Bainbridge for raising the authority/conscience issue and to Michael Perry for the citations (Readings in Moral Theology No. 6 Dissent in the Church, Charles E. Curran and Richard McCormick, eds. also has excellent essays espousing a variety of positions on these issues). There is clearly a distinguished tradition within the Church supporting the statement of Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism 973: “If, however, after appropriate study, reflection, and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct, in spite of a conflict with the moral teachings of the Church, the person not only may but must follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.”

At the same time, there is a counter tradition within the Church which is more in accord with what I understood Patrick to be saying, i.e, a duty of assent to the teachings of the magisterium. Moreover then Cardinal Ratzinger took the position in the Curran case that “In any case, the faithful must accept not only the infallible magisterium. They are to give the religious submission of intellect and will to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of Bishops [enunciate] on faith and morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it as a definitive act.” Curran and McCormick, supra at 362.  I am confident he made other similar statements on behalf of the Congregation.

The difference between these views of conscience are between a conception of subjective conscience (Consider Avery Dulles, Curran and McCormick, supra at 97, “According to the Catholic ethical tradition, conscience is the ultimate subjective norm of all human action”) and a conception which understands conscience as right or objective conscience.

Related to this issue is the question of what counts as a teaching of the Church. If the Church is the People of God with the hierarchy playing an important leadership role, what is the status of hierarchal teachings that are not accepted by the faithful (recognizing that the question of what counts as acceptance could be very difficult to ascertain on some issues and easy on others)? I am unsure. Consider this passage from Lumen Gentium, “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112).” I think this passage is ambiguous, but I know some maintain that a proposition can not count as a Church teaching if it is not accepted by the People of God. I would be grateful for comments on this issue.

Catholics like me, and I believe that includes most American Catholics (consider the evidence accumulated by Andrew Greeley) face the question why remain a Catholic if you reject the theory of authority put forward by the leaders of the Church. Greeley himself has asked Catholics why they are still Catholic and has come up with interesting answers. Hans Kung has spoken eloquently on the subject. In my opinion, Garry Wills has not. Such answers appear regularly in Commonweal, The Tablet,  and the National Catholic Reporter. They often sustain me in hard times. Apart from such reasons, however, what seems very important to me is not forever to be absorbed with dissent or anger against Church leaders, but to recognize that Catholics of all stripes have much in common, that we work within a rich spiritual and theological tradition, and that most of what we do in our daily lives has little to do with the conflicts dividing us. 
Steve