Our business is to get them away from the Eternal, and from the Present. With this in view, we sometimes tempt a human (say a widow or a scholar) to live in the Past. But this is of limited value, for they have some real knowledge of the Past and it has a determinate nature and, to that extent, resembles eternity. It is far better to make them live in the Future. Biological necessity makes all their passions point in that direction already, so that thought about the Future inflames hope and fear. Also, it is unknown to them, so that in making them think about it we make them think of unrealities. In a word, the Future is, of all things, the least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time -- for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays . . . . Gratitude looks to the Past and love to the present; fear, avarice, lust, and ambition look ahead.
They are different in tone and meaning, but I remembered Eliot's lines about time past and time future pointing to one end -- time present. Buon Natale, MOJ friends!
The call to discipleship—on the Way to Emmaus (Luke 24:1-35)
For many, Christmastide and the end of the calendar year provide an opportunity for many individuals to reflect upon one’s life, livelihood, and vocation. For the Catholic Christian, this reflection may include a personal evaluation of one’s discipleship. One of the things that I have reflected upon concerning the joint enterprise I share with others at the Mirror of Justice is what is Catholic legal theory and how can I contribute to its development that is consistent with the faith and the teachings of the Church. Much of what I have to offer for the consideration of others takes place in the context of individual and shared efforts as teachers who labor in the classroom, the symposium, and the world of publication. These personal reflections will appear in three installments commencing with today’s posting. It concentrates on the personal and corporate call to discipleship.
Some years ago one of my students stopped by to discuss the course that she had taken with me. At the end of our conversation, she asked if she could present a personal question regarding faith and the Catholic Church. Accustomed to these kinds of questions from students and a few colleagues, I responded in the affirmative. She then inquired in a sincere fashion if she were a “bad Catholic” since she was “pro-choice.” Her question is of the kind that I have always anticipated being asked regarding the divide between the Catholic faith and endorsement of public and political views inconsistent or in tension with the teachings of the Church. The existence of the division is something that I prefer would not exist, but it does.
As I responded to my student’s inquiry, I thought about the ongoing debate in the United States within the context of the elections regarding Catholic public officials and citizens and the multifaceted duties regarding some of the difficult issues of public policy involving including abortion, embryonic stem cell research, armed conflict, and homosexual marriage—for these constitute some of the pressing issues of the day that involve the intersection of the Catholic faith and public policy that is the subject of the law. Somewhat eclipsed by the notoriety of public officials and their positions on these important contemporary policy matters is the related matter involving the Catholic citizen and his or her duties regarding voting or campaigning on these various contested issues of the day and Catholic faith the citizen professes.
Knowing that bishops, clergy, public officials, and citizens have provided, some times amply and audibly, their views on this important relationship between citizenship and faith, I plan to address the issue of the respective obligations of the Church’s teachers and the young faithful whom we encounter through the various manifestations of our teaching. Given this context, many Catholics in the United States find themselves in conflict over their faith and their roles in public life. It is not absurd to suggest that each Catholic citizen is a participant in the Christian vocation of citizenship. My purpose in doing so is not simply to pursue didactic objectives; it is also to present the efforts of a fellow laborer in the vineyard to encourage, support, and make a modest contribution to you to persevere in your particular endeavors to proclaim the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God in your great work.
The principal objective today is to identify and examine the relationship between Catholic faith and the duties of the Catholic citizen. It is my position that there is nothing in the civil law and associated regulations to preclude the Catholic office holder or citizen from adhering to the teachings of the Church in the exercise of one’s respective public duties. Moreover, the citizen and the office holder have the obligation to be faithful to the Church’s teachings if he or she is to be an effective, contributing Christian member of the commonwealth. This means that the Catholic who exercises a role in American democracy simultaneously participates in the exercise of discipleship by applying in this world the substance and content of communion with Jesus Christ and other disciples.
I shall elaborate on this by investigating the following points: (1) what the call to discipleship means to the citizen who is also a believer; (2) how the believer must grow in response to the duties of citizenship and discipleship because “the harvest is great but the laborers are few” and how the Christian citizen must be open to receiving appropriate instruction from those whose duty it is to teach; and, (3) by relying on several historical models, demonstrating how Christian citizens—especially teachers—are called to be people for all seasons. I begin my presentation by turning to an early account about two disciples.
This element of my examination is rooted in the story of Cleopas and his friend—two disciples who, on their way to the village of Emmaus, encounter the resurrected Jesus. (Luke 24:13-35) Something prevents them from recognizing Jesus until they dine together and Jesus, after having said the blessing, breaks bread with them and, in doing so, shares communion with them. When Jesus quickly disappears from their sight, they then recognize who he is, and they are energized with the breaking of the bread and communion with Jesus to continue his work mindful that the “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations.” (Luke 24:47) By being in communion with the Lord, they are restored to active and animated discipleship and respond to the call to serve in his name. Without the communion with Jesus, they seemed to have no direction in their lives but were “downcast.” (Id. 24:17) They needed him to do the work they were called to do, and with him they were fortified to labor in his name. Through their communion with Jesus, they maintained right relation with God and with their neighbor. Being in communion with God, His Son, and the Church is essential to anyone’s discipleship regardless of whether one lived in the time of Jesus in Palestine or in the United States at the present time.
Of course, Cleopas and his friend have been succeeded by many faithful disciples including those of the present day. Throughout the Church’s history, they have been simultaneously challenged and invigorated in their work of following the Lord in this world—the very Lord who is Emmanuel whom we welcome this evening at the Christmas Vigil. Indeed, their actions have been threatened by other individuals, groups, and the state. Nonetheless, they have also been fortified by the Lord in answering his call: “come, follow me.” (Matthew 9:9) For example, in the 1930s, the lay groups called Catholic Action were targeted by elements of the Fascist state in Italy and later by National Socialists in Germany and other countries. The functions of Catholic Action served as the leaven in this world by instructing the members of their society about the teachings of the Church vital to public life. Many members of this important association persevered in their discipleship notwithstanding the difficulties and persecution they faced. Many bishops, priests, members of religious communities, and lay leaders exhorted them to persist.
More recently, the faithful Catholic laity were reminded of their duty to continue the same and related functions in society by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Two principal documents of the Council address the role of the Catholic disciple in the world and political life. The first is the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Two significant points about the Pastoral Constitution must be noted here. The first is that the Council spoke to Catholics and “in order to shed light on the mystery of man and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time.” (G&S, N. 10) The second crucial point needing emphasis is the recognition that the Church teaches that human existence is permeated by the unchangeable reality rooted in Christ. (Id.)
These two key points acknowledge that the Church and its individual member are called to advance the dignity of each human person in solidarity with all others. Thus, interdependence and the common good are complementary to rather than in conflict with the individual person. The Council highlighted these points by stating that each member of humanity of the contemporary world is obliged to take seriously the duty to love one’s neighbor—whoever that may be. In a powerful use of scripture, the Council reminds all what Jesus taught: “As long as you did it for one of these least of my brethren, you did it for me.” (Matthew 25:40) The text of the Pastoral Constitution goes on to illustrate this calling by stating that the Church and its members have a duty to combat whatever is “opposed to life itself” by identifying murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, willful self-destruction, or anything else which “violates the integrity of the human person.” (G&S, N. 27) Illustrations of these violations against human integrity include: subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, disgraceful working conditions, and trafficking in women and children. The Council confirmed that these acts injure not only their victims but also insult God, the Creator of each person. Sadly, they still proliferate throughout the world today including our own country.
Disciples are challenged to address all of these problems that face the contemporary world and challenge human existence. Catholics are citizens of two cities who are called to discharge civic responsibilities with the exercise of a Christian conscience inspired by the Gospel. (G&S, N. 43) By way of elaboration, the Council expanded on its explanation of this duality of citizenship. First of all, it specified that the person who is a Catholic cannot profess belief in the Gospel but ignore it in everyday life. As the Council stated, it is wrong to “think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations”; a Catholic cannot plunge one’s self “into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from religious life.” (Id.) For those who assert that faith is a private matter and not to be inserted into public affairs, the Council admonished that the “split between faith… and daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Id.) The dichotomy of two lives, one of faith and one of citizenship, insulated from one another is incompatible with Christian discipleship.
The role of the faithful in the suitable exercise of discipleship is crucial. First of all it is the laity who have the principal role in seeing that the “divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city.” (Doctrinal Note on Catholics in Public Life) While enjoying and exercising their appropriate expertise, the laity are properly reminded of the need to turn to the clergy for principled instruction and spiritual advice; however, it is ultimately the responsibility of the laity to combine their Christian wisdom, which is informed by the Church’s teaching authority, to implement and practice the divine law in the earthly city.
I have already noted some of the issues which the Council concluded violated human dignity. But the Council went on to specify several problems of “special urgency” requiring the attention of the laity. These include: marriage and the family which are of vital concern today; the proper development of culture, economic and social issues; the vocation of promoting the common good; and fostering peace and promoting the friendly community of nations. These vocations properly belong to every Catholic—man, woman, and child—since each bears a calling to follow Christ in this world and do the will of the Father through one’s baptism. It is the responsibility of each to continue the teaching which Jesus began and with which the Church, especially through its laity, is charged to continue in both word and deed. It is the laity who are well situated to embrace the duties of citizenship of both cities and transmit God’s law and truth to those responsible for directing civil society so that it achieves and maintains the common good. This is of special concern to those of us in the teaching profession.
There may be critics and skeptics who caution against the propriety and legality of such an enterprise. They may argue that the disciple is prohibited from mandating religious doctrine on the secular community. In this regard, one is often reminded of the often recalled address given by Governor Mario Cuomo at Notre Dame University in September of 1984 entitled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” in which he raised and addressed the question of the relationship of his Catholic faith and his politics—are they separate or related? The Governor counseled against imposing views based on Catholic teachings on others which these citizens find unacceptable. He spoke of the “American-Catholic tradition of political realism” in which the Church has avoided settling into a “moral fundamentalism” mandating “total acceptance of its views.”
But that is not what the disciple is called to do. The disciple, as John Paul II judiciously explained, proposes to the community rather than imposes upon it. Governor Cuomo appears to have agreed with this transformative participation in public life in which the Catholic holds the duty not to coerce but to persuade. But as I will discuss later, there remain problems with other points that he made at Notre Dame. If indeed the United States is a pluralistic culture as many have noted, should we not as believers and non-believers, but citizens all, be aware of the universal obligation of citizen to contribute to the debates on issues big and small that fuel and sustain democracy? It makes little sense to argue that the person with no faith in his or her perspective on exercising the duties of citizenship is entitled to contribute to the democratic process but the person who approaches our life in common from a religious background is denied the same opportunity because of the myth of the wall of separation between Church and State. This leads to only certain rather than all sources contributing to our common life in a culture which claims to be pluralistic and diverse.
It is through reasoned discourse that the genuine contribution of the disciple can be made for the betterment and benefit of all rather than just some of humanity. It is the example of a way of life that is suitable for making the propositions consistent with God’s truth contained in the Church’s teachings. And, it is these teachings and the authority upon which they are based that serve as an antidote to the cynical and sinister in this world that God has given His disciples as one of our two cities. Archbishop Charles Chaput commented that regardless of one’s status as public official or citizen, Catholics share a duty of conforming their lives to the belief they profess and to do something about this is a public fashion if the common good is to be a goal of society. He properly acknowledged that, “All law is the imposition of somebody’s beliefs on somebody else. That’s exactly the reason we have debates and elections, and Congress—to turn the struggle of ideas and moral convictions into laws that guide our common life.”
The wisdom and teachings from the Pastoral Constitution must be complemented by a second conciliar text, the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem. At the outset, the objective of this text was to support intensification of the apostolic activity of the laity who possess and exercise a proper and indispensable role in the Church’s mission in the world—a role necessitating zeal and intensification. A major objective of this apostolic activity is the need to address the serious errors of the contemporary world that undermine “the foundations of religion, the moral order, and human society itself.” (AA, N. 6) Of special concern to the laity are vocations involving Christian married life, the family, and the influence of Christians (especially the young—and whom do the young encounter outside of their homes on a regular basis?) on culture and society. Regardless of the activity, the laity are called to build up the Church and to sanctify the world. (Id., N. 16) Keeping in mind the earlier work of Catholic Action, the Council viewed that the laity, who must maintain a proper relationship with Church authorities, would pursue a wide variety of apostolic activities providing reinforcement for the transcendent and objective moral order in the world. (Id., N. 20) Of course, it is important to note that no one could claim the use of the modifier “Catholic” unless it had obtained the consent of the appropriate and lawful authority in the Church. (Id., N. 24) In this context, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in May of 2000 declaring that the pro-abortion group which calls itself “Catholics for Choice” [formerly CFFC] is not a Catholic organization.
What is envisaged in the text on the role of the laity is a vital partnership in which the ecclesiastical hierarchy teaches and authentically interprets the moral principles to be addressed and advanced by the laity in the temporal sphere. (Id., N. 24) Otherwise, any speaker addressing the temporal sphere could advance his or her or its views, as does the Catholics for Choice, in the name of the Catholic Church, but to do so would be falsehood and lead to confusion amongst not only the laity but the citizenry at large. Any speaker who suggests that he or she is offering a Catholic perspective to a debate but whose views do not accord to the Church’s teachings and positions is offering erroneous testimony and falsehood. No wonder why Thomas More encouraged Richard Rich to be a teacher! A teacher who is also committed to his or her discipleship works in a particular vineyard which will be the subject matter of the second installment that will follow in a few days.
This story from Toronto’s National Post (here) reports a rise in the use of “selective reduction” in Canada.
“Selective reduction” (an Orwellian euphemism if ever there was one) is of course a procedure in which one or more of the unborn children gestating inside his or her mother’s womb is chosen for extermination. Potassium chloride is injected through a needle into the fetal heart of the child “selected” for “reduction,” causing the child’s death in utero.
The reason for the procedure may be that the child’s sex is not to the liking of his or her parents; or because the child has some congenital disorder; or it may be to avoid the normal risks (e.g. premature birth, lower birth weight) attendant to a multiple pregnancy. (For a longer article on “selective reduction” in the Washington Post from 2007 see here).
The article from the National Post says that the procedure has “become increasingly common in the past two decades amid a boom in the number of multiple pregnancies.” The story notes in passing that the rise in multiple pregnancies (a 40% increase in multiple births over the last 20 years) is due to the now common use of various assisted reproduction techniques including IVF.
Reflecting the seismic shift in ethical norms that has taken place with the legalization of abortion and the seemingly unquestioned acceptance of assisted reproduction the article notes that “[t]here seems to be little ethical debate around reduction for triplets or more.” What is new, according to the story, is “a growing demand for reducing twins to one, fuelled more by socio-economic imperatives than medical need [sic], and raising vexing new ethical questions.”
For example, the anonymous woman interviewed in the story who underwent the procedure said of herself and her husband: “We’re both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. . . . All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen.”
For this woman, then, parenthood doesn’t necessarily involve acts of self-sacrifice and abnegation made in love for the sake of one’s child – a defenseless human being wholly dependent upon the care of others. Rather, children are items to be fit into a life-plan – a plan that has certain features fixed in advance that children cannot be allowed to alter, even where their creation has been deliberately and painstakingly sought by techniques designed to achieve this very end. No matter. Where convenient they are made to fit in. Where not, they are discarded as so much refuse.
Although the article doesn’t say that the couple used some kind of assisted reproduction, it does say that “[b]oth parents were in their 40s – and their first son just over a year old” when the woman became pregnant for a second time. Thus, despite the woman’s claim that the news of her carrying twins “came as a complete shock” it seems fair to read this with some skepticism. To satisfy present needs, the rewriting of history often begins before the ink is dry.
There has been resistance in some Catholic circles to the use of the phrase “culture of death,” and not without reason. The fear is that invocation of the phrase by pro-lifers will not be helpful, that it will immediately cut off the opportunity for meaningful conversation with the proponents of abortion. While such prudence may be well-advised in attempting to engage in conversation with those on the other side of the life issues, the testimony of the woman interviewed in the article leaves no question as to whether the “culture of death” is an apt description of a certain mind-set that is now comfortably at home in the West:
“I’m absolutely sure I did the right thing,” she said. “I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn’t feel any of that. Not that I’m a cruel, bitter person . . . I just didn’t feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to.”
The absence of any remorse, any sense of loss at the deliberate destruction of one’s own child is what is truly chilling.
Isn’t this the transformation of sin into virtue so that the person “can feel self-justified?” (Veritatis Splendor ¶104)
Doesn’t this reflect the loss of the “sense of sin” (Reconciliato et Paenitentia ¶18) brought about by “creating and consolidating actual ‘structures of sin’ which go against life”? (Evangelium Vitae ¶ 24)
Doesn’t this manifest a profound corruption of the human conscience?
And isn’t that the social malady that John Paul II so provocatively – and accurately – labeled the “culture of death”?
The comments by readers of the story expressing their disgust at the woman’s actions and attitude show that even where this malevolent culture has taken root, the seeds of a "culture of life" still persist. It is our task to nurture this good seed, to bring about its full flowering in thought, word and deed.
Here's what seems to me a balanced article about the waning courtship of religious liberals by the Democratic party and President Obama's administration. It will be interesting to see whether efforts pick up in advance of 2012.
This is Steve Shiffrin territory, and maybe he will have some thoughts about these developments.
Over at Slate, Kenji Yoshino continues the conversation with Robby George et al. regarding the nature of marriage. I find the exchange to be healthy and productive, not because it's reaching consensus, but because it's clearing away much of the name-calling and easy assumptions and getting down to the core of the disagreement. The core, not surprisingly, centers on the malleability of marriage. Yoshino articulates his view:
[T]hose who have propounded trans-historical, much less eternal, definitions of marriage have often been time's fools. Fifty years from now, I expect new challenges will be made to the definition of marriage. Yes, such challenges could take the form of challenges to recognize polygamous marriages (in fact, such challenges would not be new, as they were made on grounds of the free exercise of religion in the 19th century). Currently, I would distinguish polygamous marriage primarily on the intuitive ground that one can give one's full self to only one other person—that is, that the "undivided commitment" the co-authors praise can be valuable even in the absence of common procreation. But I would prefer to test such intuitions if and when such debates become live national controversies. I do not purport to know where future challenges will arise, or how those challenges might require us to reassess the purposes of marriage. I refuse to answer the question "What is marriage?" by saying "Marriage is one thing, always and everywhere, for all people." I regard that refusal as a strength, rather than as a weakness, of my position, as I do not think we stand at the end of history today.
The family and I spent the morning at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth. A small group of Spanish-speaking pilgrims were celebrating Mass in the Grotto, the site of Mary's "yes", when we arrived, and another group of eager, bubbly pilgrims from Lagos were "on deck" for the next slot. Outside the Basilica, on nearby walls, are banners with anti-Christian propaganda, and underneath them locals sell inflatable Santa Clauses and Spider Men. A strange scene, at a place around which the salvation history of the world turns. Even today, someone could be forgiven for expressing surprise that anything good could come out of Nazareth. And yet . . .
This Christmas season, I wanted to patch up one of the many holes in my reading and picked up a copy of The Screwtape Letters (for New York readers, there's a theater performance of it in town that I've heard some good things about, but please weigh in if you've caught it). The book is clever and very enjoyable, and I thought it might be fun to share some passages over the next few weeks with the MOJ community for comment, discussion, remonstration, silently satisfied rumination, etc.
Here's a passage from the second letter. Screwtape, a highly placed demon, is describing to his nephew, the novice demon Wormwood, the best way to prey on the sensibilities of the recent Christian convert -- to direct him back to the devil's fold:
Work hard, then, on the disappointment or anticlimax which is certainly coming to the patient during his first few weeks as a churchman. The Enemy allows this disappointment to occur on the threshold of every endeavour. It occurs when the boy who has been enchanted in the nursery by Stories From the Odyssey buckles down to really learning Greek. It occurs when lovers have got married and begin the real task of learning to live together. In every department of life it marks the transition from dreaming aspiration to laborious doing.
I was reminded of the statement (I can't remember where) that for the convert, the first experience of Christianity is like the first experience of the Post Office. How marvelous!! One's mail is picked up and is actually (by some sorcerer's magic?...no...but how, then?) delivered in timely fashion all over the world? Not to be believed! For the ordinary church goer, by contrast, the Post Office performs its regular, necessary and vital labor, just as it ever has and ever will.
My book recommendation for the year (still in time for Christmas shopping, if not for the super-saver discount for shipping by Christmas) is Gilbert Meilaender's Neither Beast Nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person. It's a truly elegant book, offering an explanation for much of the confusion evident in the ways we use that elusive phrase "human dignity." He explains that we sometimes mean human dignity (dealing with the powers and the limits characteristic of the human species) and we sometimes mean personal dignity (dealing with “the individual person, whose dignity calls for our respect whatever his or her powers and limits may be”). Only by keeping our eye on BOTH of those meaning can we fully comprehend the richness of our unique in-between status, as something in between other animals and angels.
If you're too busy to read, you can watch the video of Meilaender's talk on this topic at UST's Murphy Institute's "Human Dignity" lecture series at the video link on the Murphy website. In conjunction with this talk, we organized an excellent interdisciplinary faculty seminar with Professor Meilaender for law, philosophy and theology scholars from UST and some neighboring universities. I thought one of his most interesting comments at that seminar was in response to some questions about whether a convincing (or even helpful) conception of human dignity is possible without any resort to a notion of a God. He responded that, while he deeply respects the efforts of those engaged in the 'natural law' arguments in that direction, his personal perpective on this topic was something like this: "Here's an account of human dignity that I think makes good sense and should be convincing to most; it relies on a notion of a God. Those of you who do not believe in a God, show me your alternative account, and convince me that makes as much sense."
I think a good test for this approach might be to read Meilaender's book together with Michael Sandel's The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering . It's also a short, elegant book offering an account of human dignity to apply to many of the same genetic engineering debates as Meilaender's book. But Sandel tries to ground it in an account of what makes humans "special" that does not depend on a notion of God, but is instead based on a notion of our "giftedness." While I like where his arguments lead him in the ethical debates he engages, I just don't think Sandel's account is as convincing as Meilaender's. How can you have a notion of 'giftedness without some sense of the Giver?
Rob recently called our attention to an important new paper by Jeremy Waldron in which he observes that what is "infuriating" to many liberals is the determination of their opponents "to actually argue on matters that many secular liberals think should be beyond argument, matters that we think should be determined by shared sentiment or conviction." Professor Waldron notes that "many who are convinced of the gay rights position," for example, are "upset" by the fact that their opponents "refuse to take the liberal position for granted." What do some people do when they are "infuriated" and "upset" that others dissent from their views and insist on continuing to argue about things that they think should be beyond argument"? All too often, as Matthew Franck documents in a powerful op ed piece in the Washington Post, they try to shut down their opponents by labeling and stigmatizing them as "bigots" and "haters." As Franck remarks, playing the "hate card" is the ultimate conversation stopper in contemporary moral debates. Read the piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121702528.html.
Here is Pope Benedict's recent address to the Roman Curia. The Pope makes some interesting comments about the issue of sexual abuse and traces the crisis to the moral theories that led to such confusion and that prompted Pope John Paul II to issue Veritatis Splendor, his great encyclical on moral theology.
Benedict also makes some insightful observations about the proper meaning of conscience. In particular, Benedict comments on Blessed John Henry Newman's understanding of conscience. Newman is frequently lauded as a proponent of a modern understanding of conscience. But, in Benedict's view, this is all wrong. For Newman,
"'conscience' means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart. The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him."
