| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The formation of a correct conscience beginswith belief in God, who can neither deceivenor be deceived and belief in his Son, Jesus Christ.
Forming a Catholic conscience
By Thomas G. Morrow
Since the outpouring of dissent which began in earnest in 1968 with the publication of Humane Vitae, several arguments have been put forth to defend the denial of this teaching and other Catholic doctrines. These arguments include a view which trivializes the importance of Church doctrine, attempting to make it a suggestion rather than God's law. There is considerable evidence in Scripture and Church tradition, however, that this view is very much in error. This is not a trivial question, to be sure. One's salvation rests not only on fidelity to one's own conscience, but also, and more fundamentally, on forming one's conscience in accord with God's law. Without the latter, the former can become trivial.
The formation of a correct Catholic conscience begins with a belief in God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived and belief in his Son, Jesus. From there we move to the question of what Jesus teaches, and whether or not he teaches through the authoritative teaching of his Church. If Jesus does teach through his Church, we had best listen, and act in accord with what we hear.
Scripture points to the Church
Before he ascended into heaven Jesus told the eleven, "I am with you always until the end of time" (Matt. 28:20). These men did not remain on earth "until the end of time," so clearly Jesus was speaking of a fidelity which extended beyond their deaths. The implication is that Jesus was promising to remain with these eleven and their successors until the end of time. For Christ to "be with" his apostles and their descendants means not just moral support, but guidance to live a moral life. In John, Jesus said to the twelve, "I shall ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him . . ." (John 14:17).
Elsewhere Jesus said to his followers, "He who hears you hears me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16). Vatican II taught regarding this passage, ". . . the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ (cf. Luke 10:16)."1
Jesus also said to Peter, "You are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18,19); and "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).
The way in which Christ identifies with his Church can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles 9:1-5. Jesus, after knocking the Christian-hunting Saul to the ground says to him, "'Saul, Saul why do you persecute Me?' 'Who are you sir?' he asked. The voice answered, 'I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.'" Saul might have answered "I am not persecuting you but your Church," but by this time it must have been clear to him that he wouldn't get very far. Jesus was saying in effect, "I and my Church are one."
In 1 Tim. 15, St. Paul speaks of the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of truth."
Thus, we can discern from Scripture that the Lord expects us to look to the Church, in particular the successors of the apostles-the pope and bishops-for the truth, for guidance in living God's way. If we hear them, we hear him.
Vatican II confirmed this:
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.2
Hierarchy of teachingsThe importance of accepting revealed truth, that is, truths found in or based on Scripture using the formula, God is truth, Jesus is God, and Jesus guides his Church to truth, is underlined by this passage from Vatican I:
Since man is totally dependent on God, as upon his Creator and Lord, and since created reason is absolutely subject to uncreated truth [God's truth], we are bound to yield by faith the full homage of intellect and will to God who reveals Himself. The Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the "beginning of man's salvation". . . is a supernatural virtue whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe that what He has revealed is true, not because the intrinsic truth of things is recognized by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, he who can neither deceive nor be deceived. For faith, as the apostle testifies, is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1) [emphasis added].3
The same council clarifies further:Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed.4
Thus, anything which the Church teaches as divinely revealed is to be believed "with divine and Catholic faith."However, the Church does not always teach with the same certainty. There are three categories of official Church teachings: infallibly defined truths taught by the extraordinary magisterium5 such as ex cathedra statements or solemn conciliar teachings; doctrines which are infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; and doctrines which are not infallibly taught.
First we consider ex cathedra doctrines:
The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Luke 22:32)-he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.6
This ex cathedra power then, is quite limited, and has been exercised apart from an ecumenical council only twice: in 1854 with the definition of Mary's immaculate conception and in 1950 with the definition of Mary's bodily assumption.The infallibility of conciliar teachings is confirmed in the following passage from Vatican II: "The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office."7 This is found, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "above all in an Ecumenical Council."8
Are only solemnly defined teachings infallible? No. We find a second infallible category in Vatican II (implied in Vatican I as quoted above):
Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ under the following conditions: namely, when even though dispersed throughout the world, but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.9
This identifies what is called the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Therefore we distinguish between doctrines infallibly defined and doctrines infallibly taught.Is there any need for Catholics to embrace Church teachings which are not infallibly taught? Indeed there is. Vatican II taught regarding this third category:
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth. The faithful for their part are obliged to submit to their bishop's decision made in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals and to adhere to it with ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such a way that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him . . . .10
A "loyal submission of the will and intellect" does not mean, as some dissenters have suggested, that we consider carefully what the pope has said before making up our own mind. It means rather that we accept what the pope teaches in this manner as the truth. Why? Because his teaching, as a result of the promises of Christ given above, is the most likely source of truth on faith and morals. (Non-infallible, it should be remembered, should not be equated with "probably wrong." Most of what we read, most of what we accept as true, including history, geography, medical science, etc. is non-infallible.)
Apparitions?
What if one should receive an apparition saying to reject a non-infallible teaching of the Church? It would be best to take it with a grain of salt. Christ once appeared to St. Teresa of Avila to instruct her to found a new convent without funds. Her spiritual director told her to found it with funds. She obeyed her spiritual director, and Christ later appeared to her and commended her for it. Why? Because it is too easy to have subjectivism creep into private revelations, or be misled by an evil spirit, and Teresa knew that.
St. Margaret Mary was told by Christ himself that if her superior told her something contrary to what he was telling her to do, she was to obey her superior. If Christ prefers a superior's instructions to his own, given in visions, he certainly prefers the teaching of his Church to such instructions. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that Christ would say one thing through his Church's magisterium and another thing in a private revelation.
Acceptance by theologians
What does the Church have to say about the theologians accepting Church teaching? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified the limits for theologians in its 1990 document, The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian:
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively," teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of the faith or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect [footnote referring to Lumen Gentium n. 25]. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary, but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.11
This, of course, was written for theologians, who have spent years studying the issues involved in Church doctrines. Such submission would be even more appropriate to a non-theologian. Is there any room for disagreement on the part of theologians? Yes, but it is limited.When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgements, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission . . .12
In other words, just because there may have been some rare deficiencies in some aspects of previous Church teachings, this does not imply that the Church can be, or is, mistaken on a whole host of other matters. To be sure, if one is to consider percentages, even the best theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, cannot claim a record for correctness approaching that of the Church. This is no doubt why even Thomas Aquinas said at the end of his life, ". . . I have taught and written much of the most sacred body of Christ and on the other sacraments according to my faith in Jesus Christ and in the holy Roman Church to whose judgement I submit all my teaching." [emphasis added]Room for development
But, one might ask, hasn't the Church changed some of its moral teachings in the past? How could teachings ever change if theologians are not free to question the magisterium? Certainly a theologian can question a non-irreformable (i.e., non-infallible) teaching. But, he must be careful in the way he questions it. First, he should never propose his own opinions as "non-arguable conclusions," nor should he give "untimely public expression to them."13 Any such disagreement on a non-irreformable teaching
...could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgement of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.14
Nonetheless, there is still room for debate:
If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented.15
However, they should not go to the "mass media" with their objections.16It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.17
"Intellectual assent" here is not defined, but we might speculate on its meaning. Insofar as a theologian would presumably still be bound to give "submission of intellect and will,"18 "intellectual assent" seems to mean embracing a teaching on rational grounds,19 quite apart from an authoritative Church teaching. That is, a theologian could licitly say, "I don't see how this can be true," all the while submitting to the teaching because it comes from the Church.This, of course, is a critical point in the question of accepting non-infallible teachings. Either we must submit to these teachings of the Church, as Lumen Gentium 25 says we must, or we may reject them if we are unable to see why they are true. Quite aside from the authority argument (which is the strongest), acceptance is the far superior choice based solely on probability. The likelihood of the Church erring when using its authentic teaching authority in proposing a non-infallible doctrine is, as history shows, very small.20 Furthermore, the likelihood of an individual, or even a group of individuals, coming to the right answer on a moral question in opposition to Church teaching is, as history also shows, equally minuscule. And, even if one could come up with such a truth, how could he know he had done so?21
But, some argue, one must ultimately follow one's conscience, and this may call for dissent. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replies to this error as follows:
Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent . . . . Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of the faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage.22To succumb to the temptation of dissent . . . is to allow the "leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit" to start to work.23
From this it should be clear that although withholding "intellectual assent" may be possible under certain limited conditions, dissent is not an option for a believer. To put it more precisely, dissent, this allowing the "'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start work" is morally wrong.The authority of some moral teachings
Just what authority do some of the more hotly debated moral teachings of the Church enjoy? A detailed analysis is not possible here but what follows is a cursory overview.
It seems there is one moral teaching that has been defined by the Church, that on the indissolubility of marriage. Cardinal Ratzinger referred to this definition in his letter to Fr. Curran on the 25th of July, 1986 as follows:
. . . it is clear that you have not taken into adequate account, for example, that the Church's position on the indissolubility of marriage . . . was in fact defined at the Council of Trent and so belongs to the patrimony of faith.24
In Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II declared solemnly, "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder." He said he declared this "by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, in communion with the bishops," and indicated that this teaching, "is transmitted by the Church's tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium."25 He also makes similar statements regarding the grave immorality of "the direct and voluntary taking of all human life"26 and euthanasia.27 These clearly are examples of infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium.28There are several moral teachings which are drawn from Sacred Scripture and which, as "revealed truths" confirmed by subsequent authentic Church teachings, are infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium: the immorality of adultery, fornication, and homosexual activity.
Although the question of contraception is a bit more complex, it has been proposed by some theologians that this also falls into the category of an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Not surprisingly, some other theologians have disagreed.29 I am inclined to agree with the former. However, even if it were not infallibly taught, the teaching nonetheless calls for a "loyal submission of the will and intellect."
Dissent and the sacraments
A question, which unfortunately must be asked in this age is "Can a dissenter worthily receive the sacraments?" Pope John Paul II answered that question in 1987:
It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably, sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church's clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium, that is the teaching authority in the Church, is totally compatible with being a good Catholic and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error . . . .30
ReflectionThere has been a great deal of muddled thought among Catholics during the past 25 years, perhaps partly because of a mis-reading of Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes when it spoke of the possibility of following an erroneous conscience in invincible ignorance:
...it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity. This cannot be said of the man who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded by the habit of committing sin.31
It seems that many have learned well the first sentence of this passage, but have ignored the second.I have tried herein to provide an analysis of just how God expects us to form our consciences, based on Scripture and the teachings of the Church. Although such analysis is necessary, especially in our age of the denial of sin, perhaps many Christians go more by an overall sense of morality than analysis. The sense of what God expects is found in the very first book of the Bible, and is pointed to in Veritatis Splendor:
In the Book of Genesis we read: "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die'" (Gen. 2:16-17). With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone.32
If we do not form our consciences on teaching received from God, on what will we form them? Experience? This is dangerous since we can easily be fooled by our experiences and it is a well known maxim that no one is a good judge in his own case. Popular opinion? How often popular opinion has been wrong, especially when it has veered from God-given norms. The media? What could be more foolish?It is as if God has sent us a trusted messenger (his Church) to bring us instructions on how to live as happy a life as possible in this world, the "manufacturer's operating instructions" so to speak; and we, as his beloved children, striving to love him above all things, turn to the messenger and stridently say, "Is this an infallible message?" So much for love.
Perhaps this is why it is so important to return to a strong devotion to Mary. She can teach us the humility and obedient love to respond to God's messenger as she did, "Let it be done to me according to your word."
1. Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, 21 November 1964, ch. III, n. 20. In Flannery, Austin, O.P., Vatican Council II, the Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975), p. 372.
2. Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae, n. 14, in Flannery, Austin, op. cit., p. 811.
3. Dei filius, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Vatican I, 3rd session, ch. III, in Neuner, J., S.J., and J. Dupuis, S.J., The Christian Faith, revised ed. (Westminster, MD:1975), Christian Classics, p. 44.
4.Ibid., p. 45.
5. Also known as de fide definita teachings.
6. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, op. cit., n. 25, p. 380. Also see Vatican I, 4th session, Pastor Aeternus, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, (1870) ch. IV; Neuner-Dupuis, op. cit., p. 227.
7. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, op. cit., n. 25, p. 380. Also see n. 22, p. 375.
8.Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 891, English edition, p. 235.
9. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, op. cit., n. 25, p. 379.
10. Ibid., p. 379.
11. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 24 May 1990, n. 23.
12. Ibid., n. 24.
13.Ibid., n. 27.
14. Ibid., n. 28.
15. Ibid., n. 30.
16. Ibid.
17.Ibid., n. 31.
18. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, op. cit. para 25, p. 379.
19. That is, as Vatican I put it, the "intrinsic truth of things is recognized by the natural light of reason" (see note 3 above).
20. It seems that the only time the Church has ever moved from a stricter position to a more lax position on a moral issue is in the case of charging interest on a loan. And, even there, it was a question of a new use for money, i.e., for investment, not a change in the moral assessment of past lending practices.
21. In this regard I would question a recent statement in a generally fine article by Regis Scanlon in which he stated, "If these [non-infallible] propositions can be in error, then it is possible for a theologian to know that they are in error." (Scanlon, Regis, "Non-infallibility: The Papacy and Rahner", Homiletic and Pastoral Review, vol. XCV, no. 2, Nov. 1994, p. 66.) In fact a theologian could conceivably know the truth, while a non-irreformable proposition taught by the Church was in error, but how could he know that he was right? Except for the unlikely case of a less authoritative teaching conflicting with a previous more authoritative teaching, it is hard to conceive of a way he could know this.
22. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 24 May 1990, n. 38.
23. Ibid., n. 40.
24. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to Fr. Charles Curran, 25 July 1986. Available in Social Justice Review, vol. 77, no. 9-10, Sept.-Oct. 1986, p. 160.
25. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, [The Gospel of Life], n. 62. English translation in Origins, vol. 24, no. 42, April 6, 1995, p. 711.
26. Evangelium Vitae, n. 57, op. cit., p. 709.
27. Evangelium Vitae, n. 65, op. cit., p. 712.
28. See the Vatican Summary of Evangelium Vitae, n. 3, in Origins, op. cit., p. 729. This summary calls attention to the fact that in each of the three doctrinal formulations, reference is made to Lumen Gentium 25, where the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium is spelled out.
29. Ford, John C., and Grisez, Germain, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium," Theological Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, June 1978, pp. 258-312. This was reprinted in Grisez, Ford, Boyle, Finnis and May, The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). This was summarized in Shaw, Russell, "Contraception, Infallibility and the Ordinary Magisterium," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 1978, pp. 9-19. Also see Lio, Ermenegildo, Humanae Vitae e Infallibilitá: Il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986).A detailed accounting of the theological dialogue about the question of infallibility is found in Smith, Janet E., Humanae Vitae, a Generation Later (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1991), pp. 155-160 and in footnotes 33-49, pp. 393-395.
30. Pope John Paul II, to US Bishops, 16 Sept., 1987, Los Angeles, CA, in The Pope in America (St. Paul, MN: The Wanderer Press, 1987), p. 87.
31. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 7 December 1965, n. 16. English tr., Flannery, op. cit., p. 917.32 Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 35.
Reverend Thomas G. Morrow, ordained in 1982, was host for three years (1989-1992) of Catholic Faith Alive!, a radio program in Washington, D.C., in which he explained the Catholic faith. He has published several leaflets and booklets on the faith, including "A Disciple's Way of the Cross." He is currently a doctoral candidate at the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, and associate pastor at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington. His last article in HPR appeared in January 1996.