I recently wrote a two-part article about conscience. The first part (The Sunday Times, August 22) directed readers to the second part, which was published in my blog on August 27, (www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100827/fr-joe-borg/we-ought-to-die-excommunicated-rather-than-violate-our-conscience).
It seems my dear friend, Chief Justice Emeritus Prof. Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici (The Sunday Times, September 5), passed judgment on me – finding me guilty – after examining only the first part, thus studying only half the evidence.
He found exception to the statement that it is better to die excommunicated than to violate one’s conscience. He would never have dreamt to advise such a thing, saying “that for me is a contradiction and false statement of the directive to follow one’s conscience”.
He has a right to his opinion. But had he read the second part of my article he would have had to level his condemnation at St Thomas Aquinas and to consider part of Aquinas’ teaching as false and contradictory.
When Aquinas first arrived at Paris in 1252 he dutifully referred to Peter Lombard as “the Master”. However, on the question of conscience, Aquinas straightforwardly rejected Lombard. “Here the Master is wrong.”
Lombard had argued that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Aquinas replied that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience.
Prof. Mifsud Bonnici, quoting Clause 1,783 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, criticised me for writing “without any consideration for the disastrous outcome which occurs when one follows an erroneous conscience”. Had he bothered to read part two he would have noticed that I myself quote Clause 1,783 of the Catechism.
I presented a holistic picture in two frames, which is legitimate I presume. Judging me on just one frame is a rushed judgment.
I never said conscience is supreme. Only God is supreme. Many abuses have been made by flimsy, rushed or erroneous appeals to conscience, or to law or to liberty. But no one dreams of doing away with conscience, law or liberty.
In the search for the truth, Catholics find guidance, help and light in the teaching of the Magesterium. However, in their inner chamber, where they meet their Creator face to face, they alone carry responsibility for their actions.
On the other hand, those in authority in the Church should also be conscious that in their attempt to apply principles to concrete situations they could make mistakes.
Were not the Inquisition, slavery and torture blessed and practised by authorities most high? Were the Austrian bishops right to ask Catholics to vote for the union of Austria with Nazi Germany? Was Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia right to order Catholics not to go to the cinema under pain of sin? Was it right to suspend priests a divinis for watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?
Nevertheless, no one can use such examples to lessen the indispensable role of the Magesterium in the Catholic’s search for truth, or to put oneself on par with the Magesterium.
Conscience was also tackled at length last Sunday by my other friend for several decades, Roamer. He tussled with Fr Emmanuel Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology and professor of moral theology, and Fr Charlo Camilleri, lecturer in spiritual theology and head of the Institute of Carmelite Spirituality.
Roamer is within his rights to disagree with both. However, I put my money on Fr Agius and Fr Camilleri, as their academic studies about conscience far outstrip Roamer’s casual reading on the topic.
When it comes to heart surgery, I prefer the advice of Alex Manchè than that of a first year student of medicine.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt