The Paramountcy of Conscience

A dear friend queried recently whether it was not the case that in the Catholic Church the demands of conscience ,and the directions of the hierarchy, are at times mutually incompatible, by asking if the conscience of a Catholic  could be eclipsed or overborne by the dictates of a Pope. I replied that no Catholic should ever sacrifice one’s conscience to the hierarchy or anyone else for that matter. Both St Thomas Aquinas and the Fourth Lateran Council stated that it is never lawful to go against one’s conscience, while St John Henry Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk memorably stated “I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

But what do we mean by conscience? It is a word that is used liberally, but contrary to modern understanding, is not writing, thinking, speaking, or acting according to one’s own best judgment. In this regard the distortion of its meaning has assisted post modernism with its emphasis on subjective truth, and the paramountcy of autonomy. We have an instinctive respect for someone acting according to conscience but if conscience is conflated merely with personal opinion, then confusion abounds, and the very word can become dislodged from its classical roots and used in a disordered way which undermines understanding. Subtly we enter the world of Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

In the Catholic tradition conscience is… obeying the divine voice speaking within us. While we are obliged to instruct and inform our conscience and often struggle with its dictates, we can lose our soul if we disobey its commands.

Newman viewed it as ‘the connecting principle between the creature and his creator’… “whether a man has heard the name of the Saviour of the world or not… he has within his breast a certain commanding dictate, not a mere sentiment, not a mere opinion or impression or view of things, but a law an authoritative voice bidding him to do certain things and  avoid others… it commands, it praises, it blames, it promises, it threatens, it implies a future, and it witnesses the unseen. It is more than a man’s own self. The man himself has no power over it, or only with extreme difficulty; he did not make it, he cannot destroy it.” Were it not for this voice, speaking so clearly in my conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, a pantheist, or a polytheist when I looked into the world”?

Newman’s connecting principle of conscience is one of the most compelling arguments for the very existence of God. At the heart of the concern of some observers is, however, the perception that the Catholic Church is imposing its values and is thus overbearing and ultimately overwhelming a person’s conscience. Much of this perception may relate back to the First Vatican Council in 1869 when the Church considered, inter alia, the primacy and infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. The Council is more interesting because of the limits placed on the doctrine, and few outside the Catholic Church realise that a Pope has only spoken infallibly on two occasions, once in 1854 and then in 1950 when Pius IX and Pius XII sought to clarify what the Catholic Church had always believed and taught.

The issue has a modern resonance for several reasons. The world’s press often appears to conflate the election of a Pope with the ability to deal with all the neuralgic and hot button issues that seem obvious to the Press and the chattering classes. Hopes are raised to the point that a failure to act is seen as a failing of the papacy. This was particularly true of the late Pope Francis whose candour and occasional ‘off the cuff’ remarks resulted in expectations of immediate change. The fact is that any Pope is much more constrained than is popularly understood. In the same ‘Letter to the Duke of Norfolk’ (supra) Newman noted that the Pope was “tied and bound to the Divine Revelation”… that had been handed to the Apostles by our Lord.

In truth the real interest is in noting where the accent and the emphasis is brought during a papacy. In his love for the poor and personal humility in his defence of human dignity and highlighting the supreme virtue of mercy Pope Francis was a powerful advocate for humanity. His inaugural apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), was a ringing affirmation of the evangelical intention of the Second Vatican Council, but no Pope can change doctrine with the mere stroke of a pen as suggested by some modern commentators.

The point of raising what can be a difference on the issue of conscience between the Reformed and the Catholic traditions is not to stifle debate or ignore difference but to highlight that before the discussion can properly begin, we need to clear the pitch of misconceptions and caricatures. The imperative of calm and reasoned debate applies a fortiori to the issue of conscience, because of its crucial importance in revealing the existence of the divine to all humanity.

To our shame it has been the caricatures and the distortion which have too often been allowed to predominate and thus aggravate the pre-existing problem. The gaps and the differences remain but much has been done to bring deeper understanding. It is hard to imagine in the anathematisation of each other’s positions, so prevalent in the century after Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenburg door, that something analogous to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification would be signed. (It is a landmark agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church agreed in 1999, which establishes a common understanding of justification by grace through faith in Christ.)

In our modern world the differences between the Reformed and Catholic positions on the issue of conscience, though significant, pale in comparison to the differences between a modern understanding of the word conscience as essentially personal opinion, and the Christian view of conscience as the Divine voice. This is worth bearing in mind as together we address the misconception that truth is subjective.

Seamus Heaney observed presciently that “If you have the words, there’s always a chance that you’ll find the way.” My friend had highlighted unwittingly that as with so many Reformation/Catholic issues patient respectful dialogue can often bring light and truth, or at least a better understanding of the other’s position.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this article of those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Contemporary Christianity.