Con Gula

RicbardM. Gak, S.S.

RresoN Ixronuno gy F'errH Foundations

of Catholic

((/'l

Lonscience" is another word like 'sin"--often used but little understood. Trying to explain conscience is like trying to nail iello to the wall; iust whcn you think you have it pinned down, pan of it begins to slip away, This is really no surprise. We ell know we have a conscience, vet our

Morality

expcriences of conscience are ambiguous. We struggle

with conscience when

facing dnse great decisions of life, such as the choice of a career, or of conscientious obiection to war, or whether t6 pay oxr taxes which support defense proiects. Yet we even feel the pangs ofconscience over petty maners, like iaywalking or taking cookies from thc cookic iar. We are told that conscience cnioys invioleble freedom, yet wc are often given rules so absolute in character that we wondcr whether .conscierrce rnetters at all. What is this thing called consciencc? Which is the u'ue consciencel The 6rst task is to clarify the important distinction between rnoral cooscience and the superegp, e psychological notion of conscience. After esablisbing $is distinction, we will be able to appreciate the meaning of personal moral conscience in our theologicel aedition. Only then will we be reedy to onsider the criticel issue of the formation of conscience. Chapter l0 will bc exclusively devotcd to th:t issue. Chapter I I will cr:nsider the reletion of personal nnrd consciencc m the moral teaching of the megisterium, the officiel teaching ofhce of the pope end the bishops.

Moral Conscience and the Superego

@ New York

PA ULIST PRESS

Mahwah

Psychology hes helped us gready in our effons to be clear about the meaning of conscience. The work of psychologists has helped us to understand tlre devclopmeat of e minrre conscience which is subiect to all the vagaries of the human expriencc of growth and development. Normally the patu:in of growth is frorn e conscience subiect to extemal control (when the moral backbone is on the ouside and we do what we arc told to do by

t2t

Rcuon

t24

lxfomd

$

Faith

in .udoriry, or whrt wc sec othcr do) to a more intemd, self(r'tm thc mord badbonc is on the iaside rnd we do whet wc.ourselves pcrcive to be right rnd went to do). . ln other words, e criteriur of e matule norel coasciene is the abilig to melc up one-s mind for onesdf about whet orrght @ be dme, Nde drc critcrion says/or ocsclf, oot t, oncsdf. Thc mrtur€ consciena is formed ad somcone

directiog conscience

exerciscdin community in didogue with other surces of moral wisdom. The criterion also implks drat if a person spends his or her whole life doing what he or she is mld to do by some authority simply because the euthrity says so, or because it is expectd by the gmup, then that person never reelly makes moral decisions rvhich are his or her oran. For moral m.rturity one must be one's oun person. It is not enough merely to follow what one has been told. The morally rnature person must be eble to perceive, choose, and identify the self with what one does- On the moral lcvel, we perceive every choice as a choice between being an authentic or au inauthentic person. Or, as some v'ould put it today, we act either in charactcr or out ofcharacter- In short, we give our lives meaning by commining our freedom. The morally maturc adult is called to snmit his or her freedom, not to submit it. As long as we do not direcc our own activity, we are not yet free, mordly rnatrrre persons. One of the rrrst @mmon errors and mures of confirsiqr in talking rbout conscienct, or in examining coriscience, is to rnistake what the theologians meen by "mcd conscjencc" with what som psychologists mcan about con'scieoce when speaking of the 'superego." l{e can appreciate this god of commining our freedom, or developing our ch:racter, as a morally mature person if we clear up the confusion between moral onscience and superego which contaminates so nuch of our thinking and conversing about the moral conscience. causes confusion about what it is we resp€|ct as morally rtsponsible aduls. So many confessions in the sacranrent of reconciliatiqr are more clearly expressions of an over:cdve superego producing unhealthy guilt

1.le conscience/superego mixup

must

fom, follow, eramine, and whose freedom we must

than they rre the wimess of an edult moral consciene renewing itself so that the moril person cen serve God rnore lovirgly end faithfirlly. But the morrl conscienc€ is not drc suFrego. Whet then is the difference betri,een them? Psychologists oftbe Freudirn school tell us that we have three srructur€s to our persondity: the r4-the unconscious rcservofu of instinctual drives largely dorninated by the pleasure principlg the go--rhe conscirrus srrucme which operates on the reality principle to mediete dre forces of the id, the demands of society, and the reality of the physicel world; ard tbe suprgothe cgo of another superimposed on our own to serve ls en internal censor m regulete our cooduct by using guilt es its powerful wcapon. The superego is

Conscietee

t25

likc an attic in en old housc. Instcrd of frrmiture, ir storcs all the "shoulds" rnd "have-tos" which we absorb in the process of growing up under the inlluerc of audnrity figures, 6rst our parcots but lat€f, any other euthoriry fgur€e-terchers, police, bocs, sisters, priess, pope, €rc. Its powcrful

weepoo of guilt springs fordl rutomstically for simple faults rs u;U rs for more serious mrncr, Thc supercgo tells us we are gmd wlreo we do whet we rre told to do, ard it tells us we ere brd and males us feel guitty when wc do not do whet the amlrority over us tclls us to do. To understand the supcrego we need to begio with childhood. As we deveJop through dfldhood, the need to be loved and approved is the basic need and drive. We fear punishrnenr as children.not foi its physical pain only, but more because it represents a withdrawal oflove. So wi regulate our behavior so as not to lose love and approval. We absorb the standards and regulations of our parents, or anyone who has authority over us, as a mattcr of self-protection. The authority figure takes up a place within us to become the source of commands and prohibitions. Gordon Allport tells a delightful tale-which illustrates graphically the way an authority foure takes up a-place within us so thet not only the content of the command but also the voice of the extemal authority arise from within.

.

A three-year+ld boy awoke at six in the rnoming and sarted his noisy play. TIle fedrer, sleepy-eyed, went to dre boyt room and sternly mmrnznded him, "get back into bed ad dont you darc get up until seven o'clock." The boy obeyed. For r few minutes all was quiet, but soon there were strange sounds dut led the father egain to look inro the room. The boy was in bed as ordered; but puning an arrn over the edge, he ierked it back in, srying, ,,Get back in there." Next a leg protrudcd, only to be roughly retraded with the warning, "You heard what I told you." Finally the boy rolled to the very edge of the bed and then roughly rolled back, aemly warninq himself, "Not until seven o'clockl" We could not wish foi a clearei instance of interiorizing the father's role as a meaos to self-control and socielized becoming. A! dds srrg€ tbe extemel voice of authority is in the process of becoming the internel, or appr.opriate, voice of euthmity. The par-

-

cnts' task is m enlist the voie in behalf of vimre, as the pcrents . themselves cooctive virtuc. To illustr{e tbe prevaiting theory at a sormwhet later age, let us say the partnti teke their son into the woods on r family picnic. Under their watchful eyes he picks up the liner efter lunih and dispoes it. Perhap a 6rm weming on a printed sign, or the sight of

126

Rcaw Infornal

By

Faitb

Consicncc

r Fssing constrble, rray dso rct as a monitor of nermess. H€re still nord backbone is on the outside- t

SUPEREGO

the

A simplifcd way of drinking about the difference between superego rnd

monl conscim is to distinguish between the "slroulds" or 'have-tm" ard the 'watts" as the source of bommands 'dirccting our behavior. .Shoulds. and 'bave-msl belong to someone else. "Wrnts" belong to us. As e frierd of mim ooce rcminded me, 'Don't 'should' on rnc. I you think I dnU be. " She hed it exacdy iight.

.

,I

dont

ucr

to be die way

The cornmands of the superego which tell us what we 'should" do come from the proccss of absorbing the regulations and restrictions of those who are the source of love and approval. We follow the commands of the superego out ofthe fear of losing love, or out of our need to be accepted and appiovei. The moral conscience, on the other hand, acts in love r€sponding to the call to commit ourselves to value. The commauds of the moral conscience come from the personal perception end appropriation of values which 've discover in the stories or examples of persons we want to be like. The moral conscieoce is the key to responsible ficedom of wanting to do what we do because we vdue what we are seeking. Whereas the..shoulds" and "have-tos" ofthe supenqo lmk ro aurhority, the "wants" ofthe moral conscience look to personalized end intemalized values- The consciancdsuperego mixup helps us ro understrnd in part what makes a person with an over! developed br srperego have a diffictlt time distinguishing berw€en wbet 9r'erly lctive is o-r_9l_ling him or her to do from what inreoni in authority says he Tabl_mg or she'should" do. John W. Glaser gives a more sophisticated contrast of the differences bets,een superego and moral conscience in his valuable anicle, ,.Conscience and Superego: A Key Distinction."r ln the. accompanying chart, I have reconstructed Glaser's nine contrastiog characteristics of the superego aud moral conscieirce: This listing is not intended to bc exhaustive. t have added empfalil poino of contrast in Glaser's lisg and I hevr slightly re.to wolded his dsracteristics to bring his language ioto line with *L"t i

fu

F

using bere.

t27

"-

Gleser poiots out th.t the flilure to distioguish bcwecn superego rnd morel cooscieoce can cluse sorne serious Fstoral onfusion. For example, the belief thet wc csn makc a trarsition froh grace to serious sin and back to grace again ersily and frequendy leads to rhe pheoomenon of mortd sin on Friday, coofession on Saturday, Communion on Sunday, and back to sin again on Mooday. However, the approach ro serious sin which respects the dynamics of the rheory of fundamental option, rogedrer with an undersand_ ing of the difference between supcrego guilt and genuine morel guik, chal_ _lenges such e belief thar one can sin ieriously, refcnt, only to sii seriously

l.

CONSCIENCE

funnan& us b rct for thc selre of s.ining epprov.l, or out of feer of

l.

lociog lovc.

2.

.

Ttrd ir nood nlf io order seqte ooc's

scnsc

of bcing

d

m vduc,

7- Farfuuntel

I

prio. coomand. Unable to

3- Terds to be

4. Oriented primarily tward aathitJ: not a mader of responding to value,

but of obeying the commeod of "

@, a.rr .s bciqg importrnt in them_

eFn fiom thc hrger context

or patt€m of ectiofls.

6.

4. Oriented pd,marily touard aalu: re_ sponds to the value that deserves preference regardless of \r,hether authority rccognizes it or aot.

t.

Prim.ry .ttcation is given to rhe lary prr8 or ptt.rrr- hfiividu^l .crs become imponanr wirhin rhis lrrgcr context.

Orient€d rov.rd drcpcn: ..The way

6. Oriented toward sort of

7. Panisbaat is the sure guarantee of reconciliation. The more sevcre the punishment, the morc certein one is of being reconciled.

gtilt

ro clf-

@M fairly cesily end np klly by mos of confcssing to the

nnanol

authority.

9. Oftetr fildr a gnat diryrynia *tweqr f€elirys of guilt cxpericoced aod the vdue

.t

strkc, for cxtcnt of

guih depcnds more on the significance of authoriry ficure .disobeyed' tban thc'weiiht of rhe lalue et stelc-

the

fizrc:

.,Th3

Frson one ought to bccome-

"

7. Repdation comes through Jt.z.rr_ ing tht futaft orient tion toward the value in question. Creating a nes, furure is rlso rhe wav ,o the pqsr.

8. The traositioo.from

bv a sensidvirv

for new ways of responding.

authority 'blindly.

5. Primary rmntion is givci to iadioid-

firat i

to the demand of values which cail

leam or function creetively in a new situation.

selves

that is ori€trted

rduc which celts for ection-

Tends to b. rrarti by mcrcly rcpeat-

ing

ryta

tourrd thc otha rnd tovard tbe

of beiag lovrblc.

t.

R'51prrdt tost it vittriw to love; in thc very rct ofrcsponding to otherc, one becomcs e certein sort of person and cocreatcs self-veluc.

-ik" g*d

8- S.{-ftrrcoal is a gradual process of gro*th vhich char.crerizes all di_ mcnsioos

of personal dcvelopmeot,

9. ExFrierrc! ofjBil, is proportionote to dre degree of koowleds. and frcedom as well as the siight of the value at stake, even thouch the authoriry may never have adiressed

the

sFcifc value.

konr

r28

Inlormcd 81

Faib

eoei*-end do ell this within r matter of days! The neturc of, garuine moral c&rsciencc which we ere exploring in this chapter' togcther with thc dimensions of humen freedom which we explored in Chapter 7' do not suppon srrch an easv

rnd frtqu€nt trsnsition.

AnotbL area of pasord cofirsion Perteins to the appropriatc form of moral ounsctilg. Ai apgoach which services supcrego needs- would be oriented orimerilv ovnrd-individual actions epert from their mtel contcxt in 'counscling sensitive to mord onscicnce end mord grotth one's lifel Moml would pay rttention to thelarg€r cont€xt of the person'i life and to the vrlues tbrt deserve preference in this context. What would this distincrion betwe€n s'uPer€go and moral conscience look like when derting with a pastoral problem? Glaser offers some illuminatnororiously to cerrain isiues of sexuality-' (an. ing pastoral -a-rea "pp-""f,". trtween the-difference resPect which of superego) i6e tyranny to suiciptible superego and m.rral conscicnci. For example, an actual case dealing with m;$u;adun was resolved by the counselor'i refusiDg to resPe& the superego as ifit were the conscience. It went like this:

A counselor told me of

a case

in which

a

Coxscietce

The differeoce berween dre working ofthe superego in the child and the adult- is one of degree and not of kind- ln concrete caies, the superego and morel conscience do not exist as pure alternatives in undiluted'fori.r. We exgerieng e mixnle of these in our deliberations. Fr. Frank McNulty pro_

vides an illumimting example of this mixore in his account of the inte-rior dialogue he experiences in trying to decide wheths to attcnd a wake service or not.-Thc issue emerged when he did not think he would be able to go ro the.wake because of.e meeting he- already had to attend. But the meiting broke up early, and thus the need for the decision. Here is the account of hii interior dialogue:

"Good. I will have a chance to attend that u,ake." (Conscience at work, saying, in effecr "Frank, my friend lust lost his father. C,o to the wake; it will mean something to

clothes. Priests don't go ro wakes dressed like this." (Superego ing about making a "bad" appearance, facing disapproval.) -

hep! y married man with

*"-_

"Why not? The imponant thing is consoling the beregved. It's an act of charity. l-ook at Jesus and his example in Scripture, at how good he was to Mary and Manha wben t azarus died. bid he worry about what he was wearing?" (C,onscicnce back again.)

confesiion, Communion, etc. The counselor told hirn to stop thinking of this in terms of serious sin, to go to Communion -every Srinday and to confession every six week. He tried to help him see his introversion in terms of his own sexud meturity, in terms of his relationshio to his wife and children. Within several months this fifteen-yeai-old 'plague' simply vanished from his life. By refusing to follow a panern of pestoral Practice based on the dynamics of superego, this counselor was able to unlock the logiam of fifteen

"What rvill people think? Remember I was taught that a priest should even carry a hat to a wake. I don't have tL do that, but at least I have to wear my clericals " (Superego) .

"But I gotra go. I have the time. The family would like to see me there. It will mean a lot to them. I'll probably be the only priest there, since they dont know priests in the parish too well. C$ io the wate." (Conscience)

y&s; by refusing to deal with the superego as if it were coosciencc, h. freed the genuine values at stake; he rllowed them to sPeak and

"Wcll, if I go, maybe no one will recognize me. I can sneak in, sav a preyer and sneak out, without declaring myself as a priesi."

call the person beyond his preseot lesser sage of sexual integration. We ian pay rent to the superego but the house never becomes our own posscssion.l

tion or custom.

him.')

"Wait aminute. I can't go to that wake. I'm not wearing clerical

several children had been plagued by masturhadon for fifteen years' During tlrese ffteen yo.t't .-tt"a ,iutifolly gone the route of u'eekly

Although basically a principle of censorship and conrol, the superego 'still has a positive and meaningful function in our personalities. Io children' the superego is a primitive but necessary stage on the way to genuine corr scienci. In adults, the superego functions positively whcn integrated into e meture conscicnct to relicve us from having to d€cide fr€shly in wery instanc€ those matters which are alre*dy legitirmtely determined by conven-

t29

q_uiet

(Superego making a concession, but hanging in there.)r

(As

it

turned out, the family asked Frank m come forward and lead the

ros4ry. )

The development from the superego of the child to the personal value perception of the adult moral conscience does not take place automatically. One of the asts of moral education and pastoral prrctici in moral maners is to- rcduce th€infuence of the supcrego and to allow a genuinely penonal way of seeing and responding to grow. One of the grert tempt;ti;ns of moral

Recnn Informed By Faitb

r30

counselim ls to 'should' on the person seeling assistrnce' We can examine our Dssto;l Dractice on this score by esking' 'Have I 'shoutd' on lnyone todei'l Or, hi"e t dnwn out of eoother whgt he or she Perceives to be going to do?" The god of edult nroral edustion rnd adult moral or, ,rd is dcvelopmcot to ect urorq oui ofa petsonally appropriated vision snd P€rsondlv committed frcedom end lcss out of supercgo. Now that we have distinguished suPeiegp ftom the moral conscience, we can prcceed with a more elaborate expression of the ways the Catholic monl tradition has understood the moral conscience.

rr-o

'

Moral C-onscience in the Theological Tradition The Gtholic tradition has krng rttested to the primacy, dignity, and inviolabiliry of the moral conscience. According to that tradition' no one is to be forced to act conrrary to his or her conscience. The followiog two statements fiom the Second Vatican Council sum uP the Catholic tradition's suppon of the dignity and

inviolability of conscience:

On his pcn, man perceives and acknowledges tbe imperatives of tie divini law tlrough the rirdiation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order thrt hc may come to God, for whom he wrs cr€etd. It follows that tre is not to be forced to act in a manner cbntrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordaoce with his conscience, especially in maners religious (f)eclaration on Religious Freedom, n. 3). In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not irnpose upon hinrself, but which holds him to obedience. Always zummoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can whel necessary spcak to his hean rnorc specificdly: do this, shun that. For man has in his hean a law written by God. To obcy it is the very dignity of man; accordiog to it he will be

iudcd.

Conscience is th€ most s€cret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n. 16)

While the dignity and inviolability of conscicnce in our tradition

is

incontestably clear, the rneaning of conscience in the minds of many is not so clear. What does the Church intend to uphold when speaking of the inviola-

Confiictcc

l]l

ble digaity and Mom of consciencc? To what docs the Church refer when spcaking ofconscicnce as our "most sccret core and sanctuary"? Whereas in the prst we tried to re*rict conscicncc to a firnction of the will or of dre intcllect, today we undersand coqscicoce as an cxpression of the whole person. Simplv put, conscience is 'me coming to a decision.. It includes not only crgnitive and volitional aspecs, but elso afrective, intuitive, anitudinal, and sornatic rspects as well. Ultimately, conscience is the whole person's commitment to vdues end the ludgment one must meke in light of dret commitment to apply those valuesIn light of this holistic sense of conscience we can appreciate the three dimensions of conscierrce to which the Roman Catholic tradition ascribes: (l) ryrderesis, the basic tendency or capacity within us to know and to do the gcrcd; (2) norgl scieflcc, the process of discovering rhe particular good which ought to be done or the evil to be avoided; (3) coasciorce, tbe specific iudgment

of the good rvbich "I must do" in this p::nicular situation. 1'o simplify matters, Timothy O'Connell refers tr these dimensioos as consciencdl,

conscience/2, and conscience/3 resSrctively.r These are not three differcnt reelities, nor three distinct stages through which conscience moves in developing from infancy to adulthood, but simply the three senses in which we can undersand the one rerlity ofconscience. The accompanying ctart summerizes briefly the principal characteristics of each sense of consciencc in our theological nadition, As the chart indicates, conscience/l (.yz&renir) is e giveo characreristic of being human. This is the capacity for knowing and doing what is good and avoiding what is evil. The very existence of this orientation to the good makes possible the lively disagrecment over what is right or wrong in each instance of moral choice. The great rrray ofmoral disagreement which we experierrce in our lives does not ncgete the presence of conscience/1, but afrfirms it, Because we have ryrdercsis, we share a general sensc of moral value and the genenl sense that it makes a differcncc to do what is right and to avoid what. is wrong. We cannot live morally without conscienc€/|, yet it is not sufficieat in and of itself to enable us m choose what is right in eech specific instance. We also need con-ieocrc/2 (mcel science). Thc force of conscicnce/l €mpowers us to search out the obiective moral values in each specifc siruation in order to discover the right thing to do. Discovering th€ opcrative moral values and the riht tiing to do is the worh of conscience/2 . Its primary t4sks are accurate perccption end right moral reasooing. For this reason, consciencd2 reccives a great deal of ettention in moral educetion and in moral debates. It is the realm of moml blindness and insight, moral dislgreement and error. It needs to be oducated, formed, informed, oramined, and transforirrcd. In a word, conscbace/2 is subiect to the process called nthe forma-

.2i.8 EE: 4E Z6 F=t s!d

;

A

o.a.a 6 t t

E

E€E

;t e"r3 i*eu ! ;E j.aHe {ETf; E>,

E-oE

.o

'b.!E

€s€€S; ctliE

gi!

: i 9.c t:

a!:lC g;: E 1€

a

E.

tion-of conscience." Th9 goals of this process are correct seeing and right thinking. In its accountebility to morel truth, conscience/2 is illumined and rssisted in many ways to perceive and appropriate this truth. This means that

>.

conscience/2 is formed in community and draws upon many sources of moral wisdom in order to lmow whet it means to be human in e truly moral way. Conscience/3 (conscience, in the more narrow sense) moves us from perception and rcasoning to actioa. The generel orientation to the good

c

E

s BEFAfft liia Ee gt g iFfa H:;f: :;d Erg iZE0.

rZzi

ri

F!

z

E ; E E !!

L)

a

a 14 tf)

z

F'E F'O

iF f{ f it F ts

9?; *.i tEE *o 6

z

l-\

E

.F E E s?:I* V 6 E ! - -.6 .c

O

()

F C.OE

E F =g,I^_

SE b .9

';.,

"'

EE ,q€ va

,u)

=:3gE; a! EE s"i 9n

I €,+;sEEi;F€As {; E; ;cE[;{IE;; {g€ u

; E:;€ ;: :is sg

f,E

EEg

9E 9 0 9,9

:ia

i € [-E e o! :

A€

c

FE F E F iJ =CE € 5,'5 F: X 3 E E

F

.! .: I ? 'i;.:; 6 6at! Io.iaE -o^ E_g; E * E .! d=


a2?

.Eb ii€ EF.

E:e

E (::=:5*st

.9 los

EE€ HE:'H E;; !€H+

't-* rqir6 E.9 E

€=*jp .:i fiF;E E.E rE

h o.9 E +E

E

+i

-r,!to-'-6-

6s "5Er E'E!e

"

g-t -{, b o€€ c EllrJo

.!5 9^E; ; e 6 ;9'6 9 F.i E. O E L.; 9l

'E€

E

<

LP o.E

cr c

g{r

(conscience/l) and the process

of considering tlrc relevant moral faitors (consciencd2) converge to produce the iudgment of what I must now do rnd the commitment to do it (consciencd3). In coming to make this iu
MORE: He is. i.fORFOLK, And

t32

lll

Conxicnce

a bad

one!

a

134

Reann

l{orned

\

Faitb

MORE Bad enough. But the theory is that he's also the Vicar of God, thc descendant of St. Petcr, our only link with Christ. NORFOLK: (Stcslr4d A tenuous link' MORE: Oh, tenuous indeed.

NORFOIIC (Io rb orlan) Docs this ma l<e wtse? Q'to n2!; tbq bk ot.LnRn You'tt forfeit all you've got-which includes the respect ofyour muntry-for i theory?

MORE (I/o/y) The Apostolic succession of the Pope is-<SroA; itttttTfitell - . . Why, it's a theory, yes; you can't see it; ent touch iti it's a ldl.eiclry. (To NORFOLK, very rapidly bat calnly)

But what maners to me is not whether it's true or not but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I bclieve it, but that 1

believe

it. . . .6

In another place Thomas More demonstrares that the freedom and iudgment ofcrnscience/3 do not exrend to anyone else. In consciencd3 one stands alone

withfu.

as master Cromwell [the prosecutor] never tires of poiDting out, rnd frann. y I don't know whedrer the [King's] marriage was lawftrl or not.. But damn it, Thomas, look at drose na{nes. , . . You know those menl Cen't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?

NORFOLK: I'm not a scholar,

And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to yow conscience, and I am damned for not doing according tb mine, will you come with

MORE:

@1or.a/)

me, for fellowship?

CMNMER:

So those of us whose names are there are damned,

Sir

Thomas?

MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscienc.e. I condemn no one.7

.

same idee is expressed as poignantly by Manin Buber's tale of Rabbi Zusya who illustrates the integrity of conscience to be true to itself, for out of our loyalty to conscience will we be ludged by

This

fu.

The Rabbi Zusya seid a short time before his death, "In the world to come, I shall not be asked, 'Why were you not Moses?' Instead, I shall be asked, 'Why were you not Zusya?' '8

Consinee

I

l.t

In light of this undersranding of conscience, we can now apprcciate the m.rth of the rnaxirn, 'Let your conscience be your guide." To follow this maxim uncritically would be to iniect the personal n3ture of aonscieoce with s stroDg dos€ of individualism and effectively cut off conscience/3 from being informed by other sources of moral wisdom. Yet genuine conscience ii formed in did%ue, not in isolation, The.$'ork of conscielcel2 is to c&rry on this didoguervith t!r9 soulces of rnoral widsom. As Daniel C. Magu;re explains it, 'The individual and srpremely personrl ngrure of onscience {oes not mean zre ageiDst thm; it means me distirict from rlsrz but inrinsically uith tbem.a The proper interpretation of your conscieoce be your guide" follows upon understanding it as referring to consciencey'3, When conscience/2 has done its moral homework well, it yields to conscience/3. Its iudgment io erclr case will be trustworthy in proportion to the thoroughness of the homework one does in forming one's conscience. In the last analysis, conscience/3 is rhe only sure guide for action by a free and knowing person. Violating conscience/3 would be violating our integrity. If we have done all we could possibly do to inform ourselves of what would be the most responsible thing to do, then we will not.be entering the realm of sin even if we do something which we later discover was the obfectively wrong thing to do. We need to consider, then, what the formation ofconscience entails.

"kt

Notes

l. Allpon, Beconing (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), pp. t. 2. In C. Ellis Nelscn, ed,, Conscie*e: Tbeological axd Pslcbologicat Perspc &oer (New York Newman kess, 1973),pp. 167-188. 3. Ibitl., p. 182, 4. Frank J. MNulty and Edwxd Wt:*in, SbouA You Eoer Fel Guilty? 70-7

-.. kess, 1978), pp. 88-93.

(Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1978), pp. 53-54. 5. O'C.onnell, Plittti?ks a Cctbolic Morality (New

fu

York

6. Bok, ,{ Mat for All Semns (New York: Random Housb, tage Books, 1962), pp. 52-51, 7. Ibirl. , pp.76-77.

Seabury

Inc., Vin-

.

8. Martin Buber, Tle Wry af Man Accordixg to th Teacbhg of Haidbn -. (New York Ciadel Press, 1966), p. 17. 9. Maguire, Tk Moral Cbite (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, - 1978), p. 379. Inc.,