Posted on January 19th, 2010 by Anne Underwood
© Frank O'Hara, January 15, 2010
Bishop Richard Malone wrote a column in the January-February issue of the Portland, Maine diocesan magazine Harvest about conscience. In it he sets forth a very narrow view of the role of conscience in a Catholic’s life. http://www.portlanddiocese.net/harvestcurrentpastissues. This response presents a broader view of the role of conscience.
By way of background, the Bishop wrote his column the day after voters repealed Maine’s civil gay marriage law. The Bishop said he wrote to respond to those Catholics who (like me) voted in favor of retaining Maine civil law, even though he had instructed us to vote otherwise.
The Bishop’s argument had four steps: 1) A Catholic “must always obey the certain judgment of our conscience when it has been properly formed. 2) “A properly formed conscience cannot and does not reject authoritative teaching.”3) The Church’s opposition to gay marriage is “clearly ‘authoritative’ at the highest level.” 4) Therefore, Maine Catholics who voted against the referendum acted with improperly formed consciences. The essence of the Bishop’s view could be summarized as saying that a Catholic only acts in accordance with a properly formed conscience when he or she does what the Church hierarchy says should be done.
Let me describe a more generous view put forward by Saint Thomas Aquinas. To Aquinas, conscience is the act of applying general knowledge to understand what to do in a specific case[1]. The knowledge is based on “natural law,” which is “written into the hearts of man”[2]. The art of applying conscience to right action is called prudence[3].
Like the Bishop, Aquinas sees conscience as much more than “taste” or “preference” or “convenience.” It is a serious obligation to search one’s heart and learn all one can in order to make a sound choice.
But Aquinas goes further. He says that a person is duty-bound to follow his or her conscience, even if that conscience is mistaken. Put another way, if the Church authorities command you to do something, and your conscience tells you not to do it, it is a sin for you to do what the Church commands. This is true even if an objective evaluation would say that your conscience is in error.[4] In the balance between individual choice and institutional authority, Aquinas is on the side of individual judgment.
Does this viewpoint lead to a continual conflict between the Church and conscience? Not according to Cardinal John Henry Newman. Newman says that there is a realm for the Church, and a realm for conscience, and neither need interfere with the other.
“Conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or not done… Hence conscience cannot come into conflict with the Church’s or Pope’s infallibility, which is engaged only on general propositions… A collision is only possible with the Pope legislates, or gives particular orders, or the like. But a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy.”[5]
This year Bishop Malone instructed Maine Catholics to follow his judgment about a particular law. As Newman points out, a bishop is not infallible in his judgments about laws or public policy. Therefore, a Maine Catholic who followed his or her conscience, and came to a different conclusion about the wisdom of a particular law, was behaving in a manner totally consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.
History shows the wisdom of Aquinas’ and Newman’s approach. To take just one example, in 1862 Pope Pius X proclaimed a “Syllabus of Errors” that condemned, among other things, the idea that a predominantly Catholic country should allow Jews and Protestants to practice their faith in public. This was, like the instruction on gay marriage today, an “authoritative” teaching from the “highest level.” Certain Catholic liberals like Lord Acton disagreed publicly. One hundred years later, Vatican II issued the Declaration on Religious Liberty, and suddenly Lord Acton represented the orthodox view, and Pius X was outside of the Catholic consensus. No one would say today that Lord Acton had an “erroneous conscience” in his opposition to Pope Pius X’s “authoritative” instruction.
It is part of the Catholic Church’s strength, genius, and staying power, that it grows and adapts. In this light, who can say with confidence today what the Catholic consensus position on gay marriage will be a hundred years from now?
Maine Catholics who voted to retain civil gay marriage did so because they believe in the power of love, in the importance of family, of the need for children to be supported, and of the importance of justice in society. These are same values that motivated Bishop Malone and his supporters who voted to overturn civil gay marriage. All Maine Catholics share common values. We disagree among ourselves, in conscience, about how best to achieve them. This understanding of how Catholics can disagree among ourselves, with mutual respect and openness to learning, is based upon the role of conscience laid out by Aquinas and Newman.
Frank O'Hara is a member of Sacred Heart Parish in Hallowell, Maine. He is a public policy consultant by trade, and has a degree from Yale Divinity School.
