Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

Number 9

The Role of Virtues in the Formation of Conscience.

The virtues that stand in a special relationship to Prudence are: the “habit” of seeking counsel with regard to conduct that have moral overtones (as opposed to conduct that is morally neutral), and the “habits” of “deliberating” and “thinking logically”. These must accompany, actually precede, the exercise of the virtue of Prudence, since without them, it is impossible to be prudent. As we have indicated in the previous conference, it is the proper function of the virtue of Prudence to point out to the will the particular conduct that is to be carried out here and now in order for one to be true to his/her status as a child go God, all things being considered in present circumstances. Indeed, Prudence must even “persuade” the will to choose the suggested activity. Thus the specific role of these virtues in the aid of prudence is in the Formation of Conscience.

Conscience can be considered as both antecedent and consequent. As the names suggest, antecedent conscience reveals the moral attribute of conduct that is being contemplated, i.e., before acting; and the consequent considers the morality of conduct after it has been carried out. The functioning of the “virtues” related to prudence is the same in both instances, except that the purpose of antecedent Conscience is to help one avoid offending God, and that of the latter is to help one discern one’s offenses against God in order properly to repent of having offended Him, or to thank God for His mercy in preserving one from offending Him, if that be the case. We will be concerned only with the antecedent conscious, however, in this conference.

By its very nature, Conscience does not present mere “speculative” judgments about the goodness or the evil of specific conduct, that is, about the truth of the matter in the abstract. It provides a “practical” judgment as the morality of conduct at the moment it is to be performed. It determines whether the conduct is licit or illicit; whether it may of must be performed, whether it may or must be omitted. It is, therefore, the proximate and subjective rule of all human activity, and is binding upon the will. That means, of course, that to determine whether one has, indeed, chosen to be good or to do evil, one must take into account the state of that person’s Conscience at the moment the person has performed the act. Its power to bind, however, does not proceed from itself, but from God, Who is the ultimate source of all law and rules of conduct. It is He who gives them to us as objective and remote norms, while Conscience applies them to the present context. Conscience intimates or promulgates the law (and thus the Will) of God second hand, as it were. Thus we say that Conscience is the “voice” of God, and we are able to assert that whoever disobeys his/her Conscience is disobeying God Himself.

In so far as it derives from objectively stated law, conscience can be thought of as being of different “kinds”: perceptive (commanding), prohibitive (forbidding), permissive (allowing) and exhortative (encouraging). But whatever of the above kinds of conscience we speak of in a particular situation, it is of the utmost importance that, as to its “objective content”, it be correct or true.

It is not difficult to understand why one should have a “correct” conscience. God in His mercy has given us His Law so that in all things we may be able to choose that line of conduct in any and all circumstances that orders us to Himself as our true and only GOOD, our only, true BEATITUDE. If we are in error as to what keeps us properly ordered to God in all our human relationships, and in our stewardship of the goods of body, mind, heart, soul and material resources, we do tremendous damage to our being on all levels: somatic, psychic and spiritual.

An interesting question arises. If it is possible for someone’s Conscience to be in error about what leads to God, and to do substantial harm to one’s humanity by consistently following that Conscience, which the person erroneously believes is the voice of God, is it not necessary to say also that such a person does not place his/her eternal welfare in jeopardy, because he/she is really obeying the “voice” of God?

Well, we have to admit that anyone who really believes he/she is obeying God is thus choosing and loving God (every choice is an act of love, it cannot be otherwise), and thus remains united to Him as his/her last and true end. But it seems to me that one cannot go an entire lifetime with an erroneous conscience. The very damage being done to one’s humanity by choosing conduct that, objectively speaking, IS NOT the Will of God, causes that dis-ease that we spoke of in our last conference, and so the one experiencing it would necessarily be driven to find out the reason for the “dis-ease” and try to correct it. I think this is born out by the fact that so many people who do not believe in God, and who are doing damage to their human organism on the levels we mentioned, have a profound sense that something is wrong and who give a patient and willing ear to any “guru” who represents himself/herself as having the secret to utter and total well-being (eternal welfare). The sad thing is that so many of them do not take Jesus and the Church (they cannot be separated) seriously, through whom alone God corrects our consciences and heals all our “dis-eases”. I guess that what I am saying is that I do not believe that one can remain in good-faith-error in matters of morality all one’s life.

In so far as it is the subjective and practical application of law to the concrete here and how, Conscience must be certain. An “ambiguous” law is a contradiction in terms. For the sake of our mental health we need to know “for sure” what is “right” for us, no matter what it is we have “chosen” as our supreme good. For those of us who are Discalced Carmelites, we need to know for sure what is good, right, in total accord with our vocation, and thus pleasing to God. The subjective damage done to our humanity in terms of mental health (i.e., the lack thereof) by not seeking to overcome a “doubtful” conscience is the counterpart of the objective damage done by not seeking to overcome an erroneous conscience. Of course, the damage I speak of is only done when someone deliberately decides to omit overcoming a conscience known to be erroneous or doubtful, because, in effect, such an individual “doesn’t care” whether or not one is or is not offending God. It does not apply when that is only a transitory state, namely when one would like to act with a conscience that is both true and certain, but is obliged to act here and now and doesn’t have the time or the wherewithal, on the spur of the moment, to find out the truth and to resolve doubts.

Bad as it is to have either an erroneous or doubtful conscience, it is even worse when a person’s conscience is BOTH erroneous and doubtful, especially if one prefers to remain in that state. Aside from the damage done to one’s humanity, there is a “natural law” that forbids one to remain thus. It can be phrased in this way: Thou shalt not commit psychic suicide. This law is inscribed in the deepest center of our being where God resides. That is why, apparently, we say that our consciences are “sacred”, and that it is a grave evil to do violence to another’s conscience, that is, to use force of whatever kind to make a person do or submit to what he/she in conscience believes to be sinful.

Having used the expression “psychic suicide”, we might ask whether or not this sheds any light upon what Our Lord has enjoined upon us when He says, “Whoever would save his life in this world will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake and the Gospel, will find it.” It seems to me that we often make the mistake of identifying our “self” with our “life”. Since our consciences tell our wills WHAT to choose, there is always the possibility that in spite of what the conscience indicates, a person will decide to choose “self” rather than “another” or “others”. This is where goodness or malice comes into play. It is evil to choose the self; it is good to choose another or others. To choose the “self” is to choose “death” because we are persons, and to be true to our personhood we HAVE TO CHOOSE another’s “self” over our own self. Another way of saying that we are persons is that we were created with the capacity to love. To love is to be “other centered”, which is the same as being true to our personhood. (After all, none of the Three Divine Persons is “self-centered”, and we –mankind- have been created in Their image and likeness). So when we choose “death to self” we are choosing our life because we are affirming and confirming what is most essential about us, namely, that WE ARE PERSONS.

At this point I think it is advisable to put down in outline form what it is I intend to say in this and the next conference on the Formation of a Conscience to insure that it is both correct and certain. That will serve as a guide to me as I try to cull the gems of doctrine contained in my textbook, and it may perhaps help all of you to be “remotely” prepared for what follows:

I. The Formation of a Correct Conscience

A. The Obligation to Form a Correct Conscience and the Means Thereof

B. The kinds of Conscience from the point of view of objective content

1. A true conscience

2. An invincible erroneous Conscience

3. A vincibly erroneous Conscience.

C. How to form a correct Conscience in oneself and in others.

II. The Formation of a Certain Conscience

A. The Obligation to Form a Certain Conscience and the Sufficient means thereof

B. The Kinds of Conscience from the subjective point of view

1. A negatively doubtful Conscience

2. A positively doubtful Conscience

3. A “probable” Conscience (yields no more than an “opinion”)

4. The correct use of a “probable Conscience

C. How to form a Certain Conscience in oneself and in others.

D. The Sin of acting contrary to Conscience

III. The Kinds of Conscience Lacking both Rectitude and Certitude

A. A perplexed Conscience

B. A lax Conscience

C. A scrupulous Conscience

From what has been said above, we would have to assert that everyone, in order to act prudently, must be serious and diligent about forming and maintaining a correct Conscience. After all, his/her eternal life depends upon it. There is an adage that states, “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.” Anyone who lives under Law is obliged to know the general laws that apply to him/her, and it is the role of Conscience, as we have seen, to apply them in individual and particular circumstances.

The diligence and seriousness required, however, does not have to be in the highest degree possible, exhausting all the possible sources of information, consulting all of the authorities on Morality and Ethics available. It suffices to be ordinary and reasonable, that is, a reasonably wide and reasonably complete consultation of, and deliberation on, moral principles and the writings of those versed in moral theology, keeping in mind the circumstances of the seeker. The graver the matter, the more serious the possible consequences in the lives of others and for society in general, the more serious and diligent must the effort be. Similarly, the better one is educated, the more important one’s role and the higher one’s station in society, the greater the obligation and the degree of diligence required. Of course, as Catholics we can never ignore the official teaching of the Magisterium, i.e., what the Bishops of the Church, in union with the Holy Father, tells us about the morality or immorality of conduct. In ordinary circumstances it usually suffices to consult one’s confessor or one’s parish priest.

All of the above has to do with knowledge, either speculative or practical, but there are other things required, attributes of mind and heart. There must be a sincere desire for and love of the truth, regardless of the convenience or inconvenience, ease or difficulty it entails, whether it redounds to personal advantage or disadvantage. In our last conference we spoke of the need for docility when consulting others more knowledgeable or experienced. We especially need docility, and even reverence, with regard to the “Church’s official moral teaching. Prayer to God for grace and light is required, as well as the guidance and counsel of the Holy Spirit. And finally, and this has been mentioned more than once in previous conferences, impediments must be removed, impediments to the discernment of truth in moral matters, bad or less-than-spiritually-healthy habits, undisciplined passions, and prejudice. In other words, the spiritual exercise of mortification if altogether necessary in one who wishes to educate and perfect his practical judgment in moral matters.

<<<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.