| <<<home page | index to Virtues>>> |
Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 10
The
Obligation to Form a Correct Conscience
To begin with,
we may ask a question: How is it
possible for us human beings to be “free” and yet be under obligation? That is to say, we possess the faculty
freely to “determine” ourselves, so how can we be “bound” to act in one way
rather than another? After all, the
Latin word from which “obligation” derives is OBLIGARE, meaning literally: to bind, tie, and fasten round, to put a
person in bonds. This may be a question
we have asked ourselves before, since it is our experience that WE ARE FREE,
yet we know full well that we are UNDER MORAL CONSTRAINT.
The dilemma is
resolved only by speaking in terms of licit or illicit, good or bad. Freedom of choice has to do with acts of
the Will considered as “objective entities”. Licit or illicit, good or bad, and for that matter, neutral or
indifferent, morally speaking, have to do with the attributes or qualities of
the “choices” that we make. In terms of
grammar, free choice is a noun; the other terms are
adjectives. I am aware that my use of
the adjective “free” to modify “choice” in the previous sentence is redundant,
but I did it on purpose to provide the occasion to say that there is no such
thing as an “unfree” choice, just as there is no such thing as a “square”
circle. Not only are they non-entities;
it is utterly impossible for them to exist because they are contradictories,
they are mutually exclusive notions.
St. John of the Cross makes use of this philosophical principle when he
writes: “The reason, as we learn in
philosophy, is that two contraries cannot coexist in the same subject.” (Ascent Bk. I, 4, 1). In the case of the “square circle”, two
contraries cannot coalesce to form a “real” being. In the case of the “unfree choice”, the notion or attribute of
“want of freedom” cannot inhere in the entity we call “choice” because they are
mutually exclusive. The most we can do
is juxtapose them as words or as ideas, as we have just been doing.
In any event, the reason we are free in
exercising the faculty of self-determination is that most often there exists a
number of possibilities among which to choose, and we select one of the
manifold possibilities at a time.
Generally, we have only two kinds of possibilities open to us. We may “choose” to enter into a new (for us)
and higher kind of being along with one or more other human (free) beings, or
we may “choose” to add newer (for us) and better attributes or perfections to
our own personal being either as individuals or as “essential components” of
the higher kind of being we have entered into.
Examples of the former would be to choose to enter into the married
state, where the two constituent components form “one flesh”, or to choose to
become a priest or make vows in Religious Life, in which case one espouses the
Mystical Christ or Christ Himself, respectively, and becomes a kind of “new
being” with Him. More fundamentally,
and this is very often done for babies by their parents, one is “baptized” into
Christ and becomes a component of the totally new and vastly higher being, the
unique and utterly supernatural being which is the Church, the Body of Christ,
along with all other baptized. (As an
aside, we may say that just as we do not deem it an injustice done to us that
our parents brought us into this world without our consent, neither is it an
injustice done to us that our parents brought us into the Church without
consent at the time of our baptism).
Examples of the
second kind of choice among the possibilities open to us would be to decide to
enter into one or another of the professions, to acquire specialized types of
knowledge or skills. The most perfect
of these would be to “choose” to attain holiness, which is nothing more than to
acquire to the degree and extent possible the moral attributes and perfections
possessed by the human soul of Jesus, which, of course, includes the perfection
of Charity or Divine Love, in which we participate by Grace.
Where the
“obligation” to make certain types of “choices” comes from can perhaps be best
understood in the light of quotations from the Book of Wisdom (1:13, 14a;
2:23): God did not make death, nor
does He rejoice in the destruction of the living. For He fashioned all things that they might have being; …For God
formed man to be imperishable; the image of His own nature He made him.
In creating us,
God “ordered” us toward greater, nobler levels of being. That is, He has placed in us a certain
“exigency” that impels us naturally toward greater, more perfect participation
in “being”. Thus it is only right
or licit, or good to choose what helps to fulfill that inner
“need”. It is wrong, illicit and
evil to choose non-being.
An example of “non-being” would be for two persons of the same sex to
“marry”. Just as a “square circle” is
an “ontological lie”, so also is a “marriage” between persons of the same
sex. Also, we were made in the image of
God’s nature, so that any attribute that is not found in God cannot be the
proper object of our “choice”, that is, to attempt to “add” that attribute to
our existing being. Or to say it
another way and in the same context of “marriage”: God is faithful, and so only “fidelity” is a true, good,
correct, licit choice for us. Of course
we say that it is the WILL OF GOD that creates moral obligations, but it is in
and through what it means to be a “creature” of God, and in particular, one of
his “human” creatures that HIS WILL for us is properly understood. (Before I forget, “ontology” has to do with
“being” in the most fundamental sense).
Therefore, a
true and correct conscience always proposes to our wills as one or more
possible, licit choices to be made here and now only those things that
have to do with real and true “being” or “perfection” of being. A true and correct conscience always rules
out those “choices” (i.e. apparent choices) of “non-being”, something
that is contradictory to our “existing being”, or of an attribute or quality
that is inconsistent with or contrary to our existing being.
In view of all
the above, we have this basic moral principle:
A TRUE (CORRECT) CONSCIENCE IS “PER SE” (i.e., in and of itself) THE
RULE OF CONDUCT WHICH WE CAN PRUDENTLY FOLLOW; INDEED, IT BECOMES OBLIGATORY IF
IT IS “PRECEPTIVE” OR “PROHIBITIVE”, such that we are “bound” to conform to it
both negatively by not acting contrary to it, and positively by acting in
accord with it.
* * * * * * *
To go on to
I.B.2, what do we mean by an “invincibly” erroneous conscience? Of course, we know that “invincible” means unconquerable,
or “cannot be overcome”. Thus,
it is that kind of conscience, which on the basis of false principles,
but which it cannot know are false, judges that some particular mode of conduct
is either licit or illicit here and now, but which, in truth, is not.
An example of
the above would be: Whatever God has
not explicitly forbidden is not wrong.
But nowhere has God explicitly forbidden
“Stealing-from-the-rich-to-help-the-poor”, nor has he explicitly forbidden
“Lying-to-help-one’s-neighbor”.
Therefore it is O.K. to steal from the rich and help the poor and to lie
to help one’s neighbor. In this
example, it is obvious that the false principle is “Only those things are wrong
which God has explicitly forbidden”.
Another example
might be: God (Jesus) must be
obeyed. But Jesus said, “In order to
follow after me you must hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers
and sisters”. Since I am called to
follow after Him, I can and must hate my relatives, that is, I must wish
that evil befalls them, for that is what it means to “hate”. The error here, of course, is to believe
that when Jesus says, “hate”, he means to desire that evil should befall
someone. Strange as it may seem, it is
possible for individuals really and truly to be in serious error about basic
moral principles, and further, to be utterly unable to rid themselves of the
error. Thus we have another moral
principle: AN INVINCIBLE ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE IS “PER ACCIDENS” (by happenstance,
not in and of itself) A RULE OF CONSCIENCE WHICH WE CAN PRUDENTLY FOLLOW;
INDEED IT IS OBLIGATORY IF IT IS “PRECEPTIVE” OR “PROHIBITIVE”, such that one
is “bound” to conform to it, both negatively by not acting against it, and
positively, by acting in accord with it.
The reason for
this is that one is obliged to conform to TRUTH, as one perceives it. The individual, who erroneously perceives
ERROR to be truth, is acting in accord with his creatureliness to choose
“being” over “non-being”. Therefore
that person has acted in a good and licit manner, i.e., has incurred no moral
guilt. When we say “invincible” error,
however, we are speaking relatively, that is, given the circumstances in which
or by which a person has that kind of conscience, he or she is totally unaware
of the error, is not in any doubt about the “correctness” of that conscience,
and therefore really “cannot” overcome it.
It is very doubtful, though, that a person can have an “absolutely”
erroneous conscience, namely, that no set of circumstances can possibly exist
that can deliver the person from that state of error.
* * * *
Turning our
attention to a “vincibly erroneous conscience,” we find matters to be quite
different than for the above. It is
that kind of conscience which, though erroneous, could, without difficulty,
have been changed to a true and correct conscience if the person possessing it
had used a modicum of effort to form a correct conscience when, earlier in
time, that person became aware that he or she “did not know” what constituted
the correct and prudent action in similar circumstances, and voluntarily did
not “bother” to find out. The
“voluntariness” might have been indirect, that is, out of negligence, or it
might have been direct, i.e., out of contempt for the truth. The example is given of a judge in a court
of law, who though he is aware that he does not know all the relevant
information necessary justly (and correctly) to decide a case that is before
him, DOES NOT WANT TO ACQUIRE that more perfect knowledge, but nevertheless
passes judgment anyway, thus rashly exposing himself to the danger of erring
gravely.
Thus we have
still another moral principle: A
“VINCIBLY” ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE IS NOT A RULE OF CONDUCT THAT CAN BE PRUDENTLY
AND LICITLY FOLLOWED, SINCE BY ITS VERY NATURE IT EXPOSES ONE TO THE DANGER OF
COMMITTING FORMAL SIN. RATHER, IT IS
ALWAYS TO BE OVERCOME BY A MORE DILIGENT INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH; such that he
or she sins who acts in accord with it when it is permissive, and likewise sins
if he or she acts contrary to it when it is “perceptive” or “prohibitive.” In other words, it’s a no win
situation.
Again, it is
not difficult to see why this is the case.
Such a person does not really care about TRUTH, or at least not enough
to make it more important than one’s own personal “wants” and
“convenience”. It is like putting
“being” and “non-being” on an equal footing.
(As we have already said, the intellect perceives and is in possession
of “being” under the aspect of “truth”).
In a Catholic,
it is the same as saying: This that I
contemplate doing “may” offend God.
But, so what? I will do it
anyway. Or, I could find out if this action which I contemplate is sinful or
not, but I don’t want to inconvenience myself to find out, so I’ll just take a
chance and do it anyway, maybe it really isn’t sinful. Anyone with these or similar frames of mind
cannot possibly be “choosing” the higher more perfect participation in being
that God wants for His human creatures.
Therefore, one is always “obliged” to rid himself or herself of that mentality,
which we may say is “formally” sinful.
* * * * *
I
think that will be enough for this time.
We will continue following the outline in the previous conference. Hopefully, we can finish with these
instructions on Conscience next time.
| <<<home page | index to Virtues>>> |
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.