Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

Number 11

How to form a Correct Conscience in Others

Since in our previous conference we spoke of the means to form a correct conscience in oneself, now let us touch briefly upon how to form a correct conscience in others.

Those who have the obligation to see to the formation of a correct conscience in others are generally parents, teachers of children and adolescents, pastors, preachers and catechists. It is one that is to be taken quite seriously, and there are some special directives that apply to this office:

1. They are to avoid exaggeration, such that they do not propose as a “commandment” something that is only a “counsel” or a “pious practice”. Certainly they should not exaggerate the “gravity” of certain kinds of wrongdoing, and state that a certain sin is “mortal”, that is, robs the soul of grace and charity, whereas it is really “venial”, that is, weakens the fervor of charity without robbing the soul of its union with God by grace.

The reason for this is easy to see. Children have impressionable, credulous minds; and if they grow up with the idea that certain kinds of conduct are going to lead them to hell when that is not the case, such an error can be the occasion of their committing sin when there is no matter for sin, or of sinning gravely when the matter is only slight. What is more serious still, it could lead them to believe that it is impossible to be good, and cause them to stop trying altogether.

2. They are not to teach that one is guilty of sin on the basis of a “consequent” conscience. As you recall, a consequent conscience is the awareness of the moral attribute of conduct “after” the act has been performed. Only an “antecedent” conscience, or better, a “concomitant” conscience is what determines whether acts performed are morally good, bad, or indifferent.

Thus, if one learns afterward that something he has done is, from the objective point of view, sinful, that person has not committed a sin. [We recall that for an act to be sinful, there are three requirements: the act be itself objectively sinful matter, that there be sufficient knowledge thereof and reflection thereon, and full consent of the will. A diminished degree in any of the three automatically diminishes the gravity of the wrongdoing].

It is unfortunate when someone who happens to learn after the fact that something he has done is in violation of Jesus’ moral teachings falls into a state of anxiety and guilt, “feeling” that he has offended God. A person of ordinary good will cannot unknowingly offend Him.

* * *

There is only one antonym for correct and that is erroneous. That is not so for the word certain. As opposed to certitude, one may have a doubt, a suspicion, or an opinion.

One enjoys “certitude” when the mind firmly adheres to one of several possible judgments as “true”. One has a “doubt” when the mind remains truly suspended, and cannot firmly adhere to any one of several possible judgments because the reasons supporting all of them seem “equally convincing”. This is “doubt” in the true sense, distinguished from a so-called negative doubt, which is due to lack of sufficient knowledge upon which to reason and form a judgment. One has a “suspicion” when the reasons supporting one of the possible judgments seem somewhat more convincing than those supporting any of the others. One has an “opinion” when the reasons supporting one of the possible judgments seem considerably more convincing than those supporting the others, yet are unable to confer “certitude”.

Of the above, only certitude, doubt and opinion are taken seriously in moral matters. Interestingly, my textbook states that in the realm of human affairs, “little (slight)” is considered “nothing”. Thus “suspicion” is considered the same as “doubt”, for all practical purposes, because “somewhat more” is considered the same as “equally” convincing. Similarly, an “opinion” based upon reasons of great weight when the reasons supporting a different judgment are of little weight, is equated to “practical certitude”. But there still remains degrees of opinion in those instances where none of the sets of reasons supporting competing judgments is able to generate “certitude”. In our context, of course, opinions have to do with whether a moral proposition (a judgment as to the morality of certain conduct) is “true” or not. Thus it is possible to compare competing opinions about the morality of that conduct, and to decide that the competing opinions are equally probable, or that one of them is more probable than the others. That is to say, they are in the one case equally likely to be true, and in the other case, one of them is more likely to be true than the others.

However, because of the very subjective nature of opinions (one person’s mind or mentality is such that one line of reasoning is more convincing than another, yet the very opposite would be true for a person with a different mind or mentality), moral theologians and philosophers have tried to arrive at a rule of thumb to help define what is meant by “probable” and “more probable” in regard to moral opinions. They say that a moral opinion is “probable” if it seems likely to be true to a “prudent person”, and it is “more probable” if it seems likely to be true to the greater number of prudent persons, or to those who are “the more wise” among prudent persons. Hence it is “safe” to follow a “probable” opinion about the morality of a contemplated action, and even “safer” to follow the “more probable” opinion.

As indicated above, we do speak of different kinds of certitude, depending upon either the power of the supporting reasons to convince, or upon whence the convincing “reason” is derived. True certitude can be either direct or indirect. It is direct when the objective evidence and the reasons based upon them compel the intellect to adhere to a moral proposition as true. It is indirect, but can be even more compelling when the “truth” of a moral proposition is derived from the “authority” of the person revealing or promulgating the moral proposition, as are those moral teachings given us by Jesus Himself. When in specific instances one is obliged to base one’s judgment as to the morality of contemplated conduct upon the “practical certitude” we mentioned above, that person is said to be acting out of moral certitude. Although it would always be better to have “strict (as opposed to moral) certitude” in regard to what conduct is good or bad, right or wrong, licit or illicit, because of the impossibility of attaining absolute mathematical certitude, moral certitude suffices in ordinary human situations. Anything more would impose too heavy and burdensome a yoke, which could easily lead to anguish and desperation. We remember in this connection that Jesus said: “Take MY yoke upon you and learn of me… for my yoke is easy, and my burden light”. And, thanks be to God, “practical certitude” differs according to the diversity of subject matter, persons and circumstances. Since the means that we would have to resort to, to attain a state of conscience that is morally certain are no different than those used to attain a correct conscience [both are ultimately concerned with the truth of moral judgments], there is no need to repeat them here. (Cf. the #10 conference).

* * * * * * * * *

Having spoken of the various kinds of conscience that are considered normal, that is, kinds that we would expect to find in individuals who, in good faith, are trying to fulfill the Law of God that leads us back to Him as our final destiny and our unique happiness, it is helpful to speak of consciences that are defective, and which we would not expect to find in a person of good will. ( As listed in Conference #9) They are a perplexed, a lax and a scrupulous conscience.

One is said to have a PERPLEXED CONSCIENCE when he finds himself bound by two moral obligations at the same time and in such a way that he fears or suspects that to honor one would “automatically” violate the other, so that whether he acts or does not act, he is committing a sin. An example would be the obligation in charity to attend to a dying relative, and the obligation to attend Mass on a Sunday or Holy day of Obligation. Were he to desert the dying relative he would sin against charity. Were he not to desert him, he would violate the obligation to attend Mass that day.

We are tempted to say that this is an erroneous conscience, which we treated of last time, but here it is the state of mind of the person that is important. He is not sure, he just “fears” or “suspects” that he is bound to sin because he is bound to observe one or the other of the moral precepts.

In the example given above we would have to admit in all honesty that there really is no conflict, because the law of Charity (which deals with the very ESSENCE of the Christian life) takes precedence over all positive law (which deals with contingencies such as order and discipline in the carrying out of essential Christian duties). Besides, what better way to keep Holy the Lord’s Day than to assist a dying person prepare himself to depart this world in the grace of God, or even to try to make the dying person more comfortable and less afraid? In any event, it can happen that one really believes himself to be in that kind of a dilemma.

It is difficult to believe that someone has never heard the principle that in such circumstances one is obliged to choose the lesser of two evils. It would be more apropos to remember that God does not oblige us to do the impossible, which in this situation would be to ACT and NOT ACT at the same time. Perhaps the person should also remember that the pain of soul caused by the perception of being in that situation is itself a powerful indication that one really does love God and does not want to offend Him.

A LAX CONSCIENCE is that which, for slight or inconsequential reasons, suspects that a certain course of action is morally good and licit, or, for similarly trivial reasons, doubts that some other course of action is sinful, then acts accordingly. And there are categories of lax consciences. There is the simply lax conscience that proceeds from voluntary lack of concern or levity of soul. Then we have the cauterized lax conscience that proceeds from crass (deliberate) ignorance or a willfully sinful life. Finally there is the pharisaically lax conscience, by means of which one “strains out the gnat and swallows the camel”. Actually, it seems to be an “upside down” conscience, making light of the really weighty moral obligations, and giving super-importance to the very minor ones.

Many are the factors that bring about a lax conscience. On the part of the intellect there are those that proceed from vincible ignorance, and on the part of the appetitive faculties, those which proceed from a perverse WILL:

1. Want of moral training, by which one is deprived of the ability to discern right from wrong and lacks a true sense of responsibility for one’s deeds. A somewhat equivalent cause would be familiarity with individuals of immoral habits, to whose ways one becomes “accustomed”, and whose “outlook” one imbibes.

2. Want of thoughtfulness and counsel in directing one’s moral life, such that one acts “mechanically” in doing ordinary good works rather than from “love for what is good” or “hatred for what is evil”.

3. A soft life, which enervates the spirit and causes levity of soul, that is a want of moral discipline in the will, which is acquired only by the practice of self-abnegation and mortification.

4. Strong, inordinate passions, especially in one’s youth, by means of which the reason is clouded and one easily concludes that whatever one craves is good. These would be anger, ambition, greed, vainglory and especially lust that prevents the animal man from perceiving what is of the Spirit of God. Thus, anger is interpreted to be pious indignation, unrestrained ambition to be a noble zeal, greed to be legitimate foresight, and pleasures of the flesh to be honest and necessary recreation. [Doesn’t this tell us something about where they are coming from who claim that it is “possible” to disagree with the Pope on matters of sexual morality and “still” be a good Catholic?]

5. Excessive concern about temporal matters, which causes one to become in mature years a man of “earth” rather than “spiritual.

6. A bit of living in sin and the deliberate neglect of remorse of conscience, which make it difficult to conceive a “horror” of sin.

7. A presumptuous confidence in God, that results in a neglect of prayer, of the examination of conscience and of confession, and utterly weakens the soul by depriving it of spiritual nourishment.

8. Luke warmness. My textbook does not comment on this, but I believe it means having a spirit that is so dull that it cannot get excited about anything, whether it be good or evil.

And these are the effects of a lax conscience:

1. In the intellect: blindness, dullness of perception, foolhardiness and unwarranted tranquility after sin.

2. In the will: hardness of heart or insensibility to friendly admonitions, such that one can scarcely be moved to repentance.

3. Contempt for pious exercises.

4. Obduracy in evil and final impenitence.

When we compare the causes and the effects of a “lax” conscience, we get a very good idea of what is meant by a vicious circle. Therefore, as soon as one begins to notice a slight drift in the direction of a lax conscience, it is imperative that one applies the remedies immediately:

1. A Spiritual Retreat for a few days, to allow the soul the opportunity to give its attention to God.

2. A daily examination of conscience based upon a carefully prepared “checklist”, including, but not limited to, the inordinate passions cited above.

3. Devout and assiduous prayer and meditation upon the last things (death, judgment, heaven and hell).

4. Prompt and diligent recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) after sin, and request for help and advice from the confessor.

5. Removal of the causes: avoidance of the wicked and seeking the companionship of good and holy people.

And in addition, a healthy distrust of one’s feelings about the morality or immorality of contemplated conduct, so that one refrains from precipitous action and takes time out to consult reliable sources of authentic moral teaching.

A SCRUPULOUS CONSCIENCE is defined as an “excessively straitened” conscience. The latter is one, which for a slight reason sees sin where it is not, or magnifies the gravity when sin is present, but is not marked by the anguish and the torment caused in a soul by “scrupulosity”. Scruples are said to arise out of a kind of mental obsession, which is a kind of spiritual illness. These are listed as the symptoms of a scrupulous conscience:

1. A tenacious clinging to one’s “feelings” about one’s sinful conduct.

2. Together with timidity and distrust of self in making rational judgments about the sinfulness of the said conduct.

3. Exaggerated and repeated consultation of the sources of moral teaching, particularly books and confessors.

4. Persistent doubts as to whether one has adequately explained the background and circumstances to the confessor.

5. A kind of paralysis when it comes to entering into relationships or activities for fear of falling into sin.

6. A tendency to see sin in activities that normal people consider good or at worst innocent.

7. Excessive anxiety about past conduct: whether one has made a good confession; whether one’s meditation or recitation of the breviary was so defective that it has to be repeated.

8. Inconstancy and lack of firmness in one’s determination to ignore the scruples, the temptation to consult further, and to obey one’s spiritual advisor.

Because scrupulosity is truly a spiritual illness [in this day and age of moral permissiveness it seems almost to have disappeared], what I have said about it thus far would suffice for a conference on conscience. However, it does no harm to list some of the remedies suggested by my textbook:

1. Meditation on the goodness of God and frequent acts of trust in Divine Mercy.

2. Frequent remembrance that God does not expect mathematical certitude about moral matters and that one is not obliged to seek out and consider every single factor that might have a bearing upon one’s judgment in moral matters.

3. Frequent prayer for the grace and strength to ignore recurring scruples, equating them with sinful thoughts or temptations.

4. Avoidance of any kind of reading which tends to provoke scruples, of excessive intellectual activity, and the partaking of adequate and wholesome recreations on a regular basis.

5. Imitation of genuinely good, God-fearing men and women.

6. Humble obedience to one’s confessor or spiritual advisor.

I didn’t foresee that this would be such a long conference; but neither did I want to protract the treatment of Prudence and its associated virtues to still another conference. So next time we will begin to treat of the Cardinal Virtue of Temperance.

<<<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.