On Sunday 22 August 2010 I wrote about consciene and divorce in my regular column in The Sunday Times. I promised to follow up in this blog and pointed to the current title of this commentary as the possible peg for my writings. I hope that this contribution will help people in their stiving to find the truth among the jungle of slogans, enlightened pieces, stereotypical positions and so many other types of writings that bombard us.

The Church cannot and does not pretend to take the place of the individual conscience. Its teaching on divorce and any other moral matter is meant to enlighten and guide one’s judgement. This has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Vatican II in the Pastoral Constitution about the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes n.16) writes that “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience… For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths….”

The sanctity and inviolability of conscience is confirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1782 “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’”

Aquinas: a great defender of conscience

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas had explained all this very clearly in his works.

James F. Keenan, s.j. is currently Professor of moral theology and director of the doctoral program at Weston Jesuit School of Theology. He was one of the main organisers of the successful mammoth international seminar on ethics and moral life, for which over 600 professor or lecturers of moral theology took part in Trento a few week ago weeks ago. In his book “Moral Wisdom, Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition” he wrote that when Thomas first arrived at Paris in 1252 to teach ( namely, to comment on Peter’s Lombard’s Sentences, since every budding professor lectured on them as their first university lecture appointment…) he dutifully referred to Lombard as the Master. However, on the question of conscience Thomas straightforwardly rejected Lombard. “Here the Master is wrong” (hic magister falsum dicit). Lombard had argued that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Thomas responded that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience.” (Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, IV,38,2.4 q..a 3; See also IV.27.1.2.q.a.4ad 3; IV.27,3.3. expositio.)

It is true that Aquinas was censored by the Archbishop of Paris. Nevertheless, the teachings of Aquinas and not those of the Archbishop of Paris stood the test of time.

Everyone still studies the Angelical Doctor – as Aquinas is known – while the Archbishop of Paris is, to-day, one of the great unknowns that litter certain periods of history.

Aquinas has shown that the more one moves from the universal moral principle – do what is good and avoid what is bad – towards concrete decisions in a particular socio-cultural historical situations, the more important the role of conscience becomes. In this most intimate of fora the individual is alone with his Creator, Provider and Judge. In this forum, each individual carries his (or her) humanity, psychological make-up, power to reason things out and spirituality. In that most intimate of fora the decision is his and his alone. He has to justify it with his God and no one else.

Form your conscience

Quite naturally the Catholic should enlighten this process by the teaching of the Church. This teaching together with prayer, reflection, avoidance of sin and study are the “tools” that one should use before taking a decision in conscience.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1783 “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”

A decision in conscience is thus not a mere feeling or a position taken fleetingly or for a flimsy reason. It is the most serious of decisions. One should also be wary of the possibility of making a mistaken decision. One cannot depart on this journey to discover what concrete action one should taken, while a priori claiming that one does not care about or does not give enough importance to the teaching of the Church. Such a position would undermine the process and debilitate one’s conscience. This teaching is like a beacon of light that guides one lovingly.

On the other hand, those in authority in the Church should also be conscious that in their attempt to apply principles to concrete situation and to give prudential judgments, they could also reach a mistaken position. Is there any need to give examples or mistaken prudential judgments and concrete decisions by the hierarchy? Would not the name of the list of such mistakes be called Legion?

Remember history

We should be humble enough to accept the fact that the application of principles to concrete situation is a difficult nut to crack. It is especially difficult in a world tainted by sin. Besides it is also legitimare to interpret social reality in different ways all of which could be valid, at least on the subjective plane. The history of the Church has shown that it is legitimate for different Catholics to hold the same principles but arrive at different practical applications. We would make a mistake if we forget this very clear and simple lesson of history.

PS. In the divoce debate Christians agree on the same principle: the indissolubility of marriage. However Christians disagree among themselves about how best to tackle the reality of broken marriages. The Orthodox branch of Christianity allows a second marriage in certain circumstances. We do not.

The debate currently taking place in Malta concerns the practical application of the principle to social reality. Is it not legitimate for a Catholic to arrive at an informed decision in conscience that in the particular social reality prevailing in Malta, divorce is the lesser of two evils and, therefore, its legalisation could be acceptable to that same Catholic? Should not such a decision be respected by the rest of the Catholic community?

I have no doubt that the answer should be in the affirmative. I also fully agree that other Catholics (probably the vast majority) would arrive at a totally different position in conscience.