Thanks to Rob for his joining me on the discussion on conscience and fidelity, a discussion we pursue frequently at the Mirror of Justice—and, I am confident, we will continue to discuss for some time to come. In view of Rob’s update regarding N. 16 of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Worlds, Gaudium et Spes, it would be helpful to know what this provision states in its entirety in the chapter on the dignity of the human person:
N. 16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: 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. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.
The quotation offered by Rob in his update is not from Cardinal Ratzinger and his commentary on N. 16. It was by Father and Professor Joseph Ratzinger and written after the Council in the latter half of the 1960s. Substantively, Fr. Ratzinger developed the specific passage quoted in Rob’s update in his discussion of Cardinal Newman’s thoughts on the matter of conscience. But Fr. Ratzinger presented his own view of the conciliar text and went on to explain that, “Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.” Fr. Ratzinger continued by pointing out that this text from the Pastoral Constitution simply presents the general outline of the Christian doctrine regarding conscience. He, Ratzinger, took pains to emphasize in his discussion on this provision of the Council’s document that the text emphasizes the transcendent nature of conscience, its non-arbitrary character, and its objectivity—a point that I think is most important about the formation of conscience that is well-formed. I concur with Fr. Ratzinger’s assessment that conscience, in a Christian context and praxis, must not be subjectively determined—and I think this is precisely what the “Catholics for Marriage Equality” in Maine are doing—subjectively forming their consciences. Fr. Ratzinger stated, moreover, that,
The fathers [of the Council] were obviously anxious (as, of course, was repeatedly shown in the debate on religious freedom also) not to allow an ethics of conscience to be transformed into the domination of subjectivism, and not to canonize a limitless situation ethics under the guise of conscience. On the contrary, the conciliar text implies that obedience to conscience means an end to subjectivism, a turning aside from blind arbitrariness, and produces conformity with the objective norms of moral action.
A few lines later, Fr. Ratzinger penned that “the habit of sin can dull and practically blind the conscience.” Here, Fr. Ratzinger is critical of the conciliar text in that it fails to give a sufficient account of “the limits of conscience.” He further noted that the text offers an “evasive formula” regarding the “binding force of erroneous conscience.” Here, the good father who was a peritus at the Council notes his own concern about the erroneously formed conscience. This is why I often speak of the well-formed conscience rather than conscience, because I believe that there can be an erroneously formed conscience that some folks rely upon to justify the decisions they make in life. I turn to “Catholics for Marriage Equality” in the Maine referendum as a case in point. Fr. Ratzinger concluded his observations on the conciliar text that Rob has brought to our attention by stating:
The doctrine of the binding force of an erroneous conscience in the form in which it is propounded nowadays [the 1960s and, I would suggest, to the present day], belongs entirely to the thought of modern times.
Because of what I have presented here, I do not join Rob in his assessment “that a person is only obligated to follow a well-formed conscience is in some tension with significant strands of the Catholic tradition...” I think Rob makes a good point, in which I concur, that much, but not all of the issue we have been discussing, emerges from poor formation of conscience. A person may be most sincere in his or her following a poorly formed conscience, but that conscience remains poorly formed. That is a concern for me, and it was a concern for Fr. Ratzinger.
Rob concludes his last entry by arguing that framing the Catholic voter’s obligation as “a duty to disregard her own conscience in the voting booth, rather than a duty to prayerfully and intentionally seek to form her conscience in the light of Church teaching, also raises tensions with democratic notions of citizenship.” I am inclined to disagree. Folks rarely form their views in a vacuum. They turn to opinions they trust or that they like or that they hear all the time, etc. I think the Church and Her teachings can be such a source; for the person who declares to be a “faithful Catholic,” then they ought to turn to Her teachings and the wisdom on which they are based. This should not generate tension with democratic notions of citizenship. If some view the Maine group “Catholics for Marriage Equality” as one source of information for forming their views, the Church must be viewed as an alternative source, particularly for the “faithful Catholic.”
RJA sj
We've talked about conscience and the Catholic voter before on MoJ, but it's worth revisiting in the context of the Maine same-sex marriage vote. The notion that a person is only obligated to follow a well-formed conscience is in some tension with significant strands of the Catholic tradition, including the writings of St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard, and Albert the Great. In the estimation of these and other leading figures, the culpability lies in the poor formation, not in obeying the conscience that results from the poor formation. Besides running counter to much that has come before in our faith tradition, framing the Catholic voter's obligation as a duty to disregard her own conscience in the voting booth, rather than a duty to prayerfully and intentionally seek to form her conscience in the light of Church teaching, also raises tension with democratic notions of citizenship.
UPDATE: Greg Kalscheur brings to my attention this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's Commentary on section 16 of Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World:
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. [The conscience of the individual] confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal[,] which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Even in his first post, Bob Hockett has contributed significantly to the Catholic legal theory project. There is a lot to explore along the lines of his Franciscan worldview and its implications for our understanding of lawyers and the work they do. I write only to note my admiration for his progression from Augustinian to Thomist to Franciscan. More often, I think, we start out as Franciscans and move in an Augustinian direction -- filled with wonder and awe for the particulars of creation when we're young, then gradually overtaken by the reality of sin, retreating into a defensive, or at least wary, posture toward creation. I know I could benefit from having a few more daily "Thou" encounters with my surroundings. Maintaining a sense of the sacred in our everyday encounters, despite our familiarity with the sinfulness that is never far from the surface of those encounters, seems to be an especially pressing challenge for lawyers. Can legal educators play a role in helping lawyers meet this challenge?
Tomorrow voters in Maine will cast their individual ballots on the proposal to determine the meaning of marriage—the Question 1 initiative. A “yes” is a vote for the defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Sound familiar? There are strong parallels between this issue and the Proposition 8 question that California voters addressed a few months ago.
The matter in the Maine ballot clearly addresses the question of what a marriage is and what it is not. The current law and Catholic teaching on the matter run a parallel course. But, like in many states a strong, aggressive lobby wishes to change all this. Their success in litigation and ballot initiatives is mixed, but they have made remarkable and perilous headway in “redefining” marriage.
I write tonight to bring to the attention of the Mirror of Justice community the work of a group of individuals who claim to be “faithful Catholics” who believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman in addition to the union of one man and one woman. They criticize their bishop, Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine. They claim to offer a “Catholic case for same-sex marriage.” [HERE] Moreover, they allege that the bishop “has missed the point.”
He has not.
The so-called Catholics who advocate for same-sex marriage are the ones who are in error. I have argued why this is so enough times in the past. [Download Equality and Same Sex Marriage] Some of the Catholic advocates argue that they are “obligated” to follow “their own informed consciences on the matter.” If they were Catholic, they would know that this formulation is in error if one follows Church teaching. They are obligated to follow a well-formed conscience, not a subjectively determined one that is premised on grave error. But I digress.
Bishop Malone has offered his own perspective [HERE].
Pollsters appear to agree that the outcome of the initiative is too close to call. That being said, I shall pray that sense and sensibility and the reasoned position of the Church will prevail. Perhaps others may wish to join me in this effort.
RJA sj
Hello All,
A quick note to congratulate our friend Steve Shiffrin upon the release of his new book on the 'Religious Left.' We held an illuminating symposium here this past Friday to mark the occasion. I'll write more about that a bit later. I thought right now I would mention that our colleague Mike Dorf has a very nice post on the event over on Dorf on Law, with a helpful comment thread attached.
All best and more soon, Bob
Sunday, November 1, 2009
I suspect I speak for many MOJ readers and bloggers when I say how wonderful and inspiring it has been to have had Michael's faith-filled dispatches from the Camino these past few weeks. What a blessed experience this been for him, and for all of us. Thanks, Michael!
We just finished the Pilgrim´s Mass at theCathedral, and it was one of the most beautiful masses I have ever attended with the choir´s voices moving through the church like angels. The pilgrim´s were fumigated with a big censor (sp), which took 7 or 8 people to swing it high adn across the length of the church. The mass was made more special by the presence of so many people I have gotten to know over the last five weeks, including several I had not seen in weeks. Somehow, we all ended up here at the same time.
The internet cnnection isn´t working well so I´ll post more when I get baCk to the US. My heart is filled with gratitude for God´s graces over the first 49 and a half years of my life and over the past 33 days of walking.
Bob, I very much appreciated your post, whuch resonated with me as I have spent 33 days obeserving the natural world at a walker´s pace.
