Since When Has Conscience Become A Dirty Word

So, this morning, I saw a well known^§ opponent of abortion post on Facebook, saying we shouldn’t vote according to conscience, but according to “conviction.” This post was aimed at encouraging people to vote for her preferred candidate instead of a minor party. In fact she implied it would be morally wrong not to vote for her candidate. I’ve addressed that sort of nonsense before, so I won’t repeat my objection to those arguments. But the fact that this personality—who is Catholic—could have such a malformed idea of conscience, makes me think I should discuss it, and why it is vital to follow it.

I understand why some people are suspicious of invoking conscience. Many do abuse the term, treating it as a mere feeling. But Conscience is not a feeling. It’s not a case of “I like X,” or “I don’t like Y.” Conscience is something that compels us to act or not act. “I must do X.” I must not do Y.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. (1766; 2071)

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: (1749)

For a person to say they will act on conviction, not conscience, especially if they urge others to act against conscience, shows that they are either grossly ignorant of what conscience is, or they are saying that they are choosing or advocating to others disobedience on what they feel morally obliged to do. That’s deadly serious, especially when trying to pressure others. Our Lord had some words about that, involving a millstone. 

Conscience must be formed by following the teaching of the Catholic Church of course. That means if the teaching of the Church seems to go against our conscience, we need to see if we have properly understood the teaching. If we have not, we need to learn the true teaching. But if we have not misunderstood, we should see if we are being honest about what we’re labeling “conscience.” We might find it’s not conscience at all, but simply our feelings or preferences that we don’t want to surrender.

Can conscience err? Yes. But if we don’t know the truth, and have no way of knowing (invincible ignorance). then we are not condemned for having a faulty conscience (see Gaudium et Spes #16). Not knowing the truth is not an automatic free pass, however. If we are Catholics, we should know that the Church is established by Christ (cf. Matthew 16:18) and that we are bound to listen to her (Luke 10:16) as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). So rejecting Church teaching is not a result of a properly formed conscience. As Donum Veritatis tells us:

38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised.

So, if the Church teaches “X is morally evil,” then anybody who is Catholic and knows that teaching, yet freely chooses to do X cannot claim that they are following a properly formed conscience. But note this: I said if the Church teaches. I did not say, “if some guy on the internet says…” The sad thing is, there are a lot of Catholics out there who confuse their preferences and political beliefs with Church teaching. If they think caring for the poor means voting for higher taxes, they will often argue that opposing taxes is “rejecting the Church.” If they think that opposing abortion means voting for party X, they will treat any Catholic who has moral issues with voting for party X is “rejecting the Church.” We should always remember that it is the Pope and bishops in communion with him who represent Church teaching, not some social media personality or blogger—and, yes, I include myself in that^*.

The Catholic whose conscience forbids an action that others have no problem with should not let themselves be bullied by a theological “Karen on Facebook” who thinks their preference is doctrine. If we seek to do what is right, according to Church teaching^#, then the fact that others draw a different conclusion from us is not automatically proof of their error. 

If we try to pressure such a Catholic to violate his conscience because we fear the political consequences of his actions^{^}, we had better start preparing our fitting for the millstone, because we will be pressuring that person to do what he or she thinks is evil in God’s eyes.

_______________

(§) As always, I omit the names involved to prevent people from thinking that my opposing an idea is an ad hominem attack. My blog is about defending Church teaching, not political infighting.

(*) I will always do my best to present Church teaching accurately. But if the Pope or bishop decides on an interpretation different from mine, follow them, not me!

(#) Scrupulosity is something to be aware of. If one is in doubt about their position, consulting with the pastor could be a wise move.

(^) As a personal example, my conscience forbids me from voting for a candidate that supports abortion. But that doesn’t mean I feel I am automatically obliged to vote for the other major party. If my conscience forbids it, I must not do it.

Church and Politics

One tendency many American Catholics have is to argue that “The Church should stay out of politics and focus on saving souls.” Invariably, what they label “politics” happens to be whatever rebukes the Church has for their own political party. That doesn’t always mean that these Catholics support those evils. But it shows that they view them as less important than the issues that offend them more. Whatever their political beliefs, they think the Church should focus more on the evils of the other side.

I think these Catholics miss the point. The Church is not replacing the mission to bring people to Christ with political beliefs. Rather, the Church is carrying out their mission by warning people when they are giving support to Caesar in opposition to what God commands. Regardless of what party an individual Catholic favors—and in a universal Church, there are more political parties to worry about than just the Americans’ Democrats and Republicans—if that party tries to implement an agenda contrary to God’s law, they are usurping what belongs to God. Benedict XVI makes a good point here:

To the extent that the Roman emperor safeguards the law, he can demand obedience. Of course, the scope of the duty of obedience is reduced at the same time: there are the things that are Caesar’s and those that are God’s. Whenever Caesar exalts himself as God, he has exceeded his limits, and obedience then would be the denial of God. Essentially along these same lines is Jesus’ reply to Pilate, in which the Lord, in the presence of an unjust judge, still acknowledges that the authority to act as judge, a role of service to the law, can be given only from above (Jn 19:11).

—Benedict XVI, Western Culture, Today and Tomorrow

If a party tries to legalize something contrary to God’s law (for example, try to declare abortion or homosexual actions as “good” or try to redefine the nature of sex and gender) or carries out a potentially neutral act in an evil way (such as turning the right of the state to control who enters the country into forced family separation or to live in disgraceful conditions), they have gone beyond the authority that was given from above.

It’s always easy to see when the “other side” does evil. But it is much harder to see when our own party does evil. I have seen Catholics claim that “the bishops got played” when the bishops stood up to condemn abortion. I’ve seen Catholics claim that “the bishops support open borders” when they condemn mistreatment and callousness directed against migrants. These Catholics should remember something else Benedict XVI said:

Politics is the sphere of reason; more precisely, not a purely technical, calculating reason, but moral reasoning, since the end of the State, and thus the ultimate purpose of all politics, is by its very nature moral, namely, peace and justice. This means that moral reasoning about, or more precisely, rational discernment of what fosters justice and peace (and therefore is moral) must be constantly carried on and defended against all that could obscure and diminish reason’s capacity for discernment. The party mentality that goes along with power will always produce myths in various forms, which are presented as the true path of moral reality in politics but are in fact merely masks and disguises of power.

—ibid

We should beware of those myths. In America, they tend to be negative: if you don’t vote for us, you will be responsible for whatever evil happens is one of the most common. Another is we can’t focus on that issue right now when this is so much worse. But let’s face it: Obama did many of the things we condemn Trump for. Planned Parenthood remains fully funded despite warnings and promises, and the contraception mandate is still in place. Both sides point out the hypocrisy of their rival. But Matthew 7:3-5 applies to both parties. So these myths are shown to be masks of power.

Does this mean voting is futile? Of course not. We do need to act to promote the good and oppose the evil in accord with Church teaching, and voting is part of that action. Vatican II (Apostolicam actuositatem 5) tells us:

Christ’s redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel. In fulfilling this mission of the Church, the Christian laity exercise their apostolate both in the Church and in the world, in both the spiritual and the temporal orders. These orders, although distinct, are so connected in the singular plan of God that He Himself intends to raise up the whole world again in Christ and to make it a new creation, initially on earth and completely on the last day. In both orders the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same Christian conscience.

But if we make use of myths to promote our own party and excuse our own disobedience to the Church, we are letting Caesar—or at least the person we want as Caesar—attempt to take the place of God. We must be always ready to draw the line when Caesar tries to usurp the power of God—even if that Caesar is of our own party—and tell him or her we will not tolerate their actions^*. If our preferred party is at odds with the Church, we have an obligation to change the party to do be closer to what we are morally obligated to do.

It is easy to decry when the fellow Catholic doing this is part of the “other side.” But if we refuse to oppose it—or worse, we even support it—when our “own side” does it, we are also guilty, regardless of the fact that the other side does it too.

_________________

(*) While America is effectively a two-party system, we must avoid the either-or fallacy here. The fact that Party X promotes evil does not make Party Y good. We must evaluate both. If we accept one or reject both, it needs to be done through formation of conscience through the teaching of the Church. We might successfully lie to each other, we cannot lie to God.

Does Conscience Cease to Matter in a “Purple” State?

Norfolk I’m not a scholar, as Master Cromwell never tires of pointing out, and frankly I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names.… You know those men! Can’t you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship? 

More (moved) And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

—Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons, Act II

Preliminary Note: The purpose of this article is not to argue that the Catholic voter is required to vote for a minor party. It is intended to point out why the “You must vote for Candidate A or you are guilty if candidate B gets elected” argument—used by Catholics of both major parties—is not part of Catholic moral obligation.

Introduction

In election years, I find that certain arguments get made by Catholics from both major parties. But if you point out that it is the same argument with merely a different conclusion on who to vote for, you can expect some serious hostility. After all, they’re different from us. Their side is wrong. The problem is, some of these arguments aren’t merely partisan. They’re wrong according to moral theology too.

One of these arguments is that: It might be okay to vote for a minor party, “down vote,” or decline to vote if the state is solidly Blue or Red^* and your vote will have no impact on the final result. But if you vote in a purple state, you have the obligation to vote for the right party… That right party being theirs. Such Catholics (and their attitude are found in both parties) act as if those who reach a different conclusion from them are guilty of grave sin.

It’s a puzzling attitude that they take because what it boils down to is: “You can only vote as your conscience dictates, as long as your vote doesn’t matter,” as if conscience was suspended based on where you happened to live. 

The Catholic Church and Conscience

The Catholic Church takes conscience seriously. We are tasked with properly forming our conscience. When we are convicted that we must act in a certain way, or we cannot do what we believe to be evil. Conscience, unfortunately, sometimes gets misrepresented as “if I don’t see anything wrong with X, I’m following my conscience.” But that’s not conscience. Conscience tells me I must do X; I must not do Y.

Sometimes, conscience is erroneous. A person wrongly thinks he must do something he should not, or thinks he must not do something he should. This is why we are obligated to look to the teaching of the Church to properly form our conscience. Gaudium et Spes makes clear.

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. 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. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

The idea of being bound to obey an erroneous conscience might scandalize us, but it should understand it this way: if (IN A NON-SCRUPULOUS WAY^#) we wrongly think we do evil to act in a certain way but choose to do it anyway, thinking it is evil, we are choosing to act wrongly.

But, if we simply refuse to look for the teaching of the Church, we have no such excuse. Lumen Gentium #14 tells us:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

As Catholics, we have all the advantages of a Church established by Christ, teaching with a His authority. That means we have to look to the Church to form our conscience.

But sometimes, the manner of following Church teachings can take different legitimate forms. Provided that this manner is not a Pharisaical evasion (cf. Mark 7:9), we can choose the manner we think is best—especially if our conscience insists on it—despite what others think best.

The Ratzinger Memorandum

This requires nuance of course. Many Catholics misuse the Ratzinger Memorandum^§ to justify voting for a candidate who supports an evil. The document was written to address presenting oneself for Communion if their actions are at odds with Church teaching. Much of it deals with Catholic but pro-abortion politicians. It points out that being in disagreement on other issues—such as capital punishment^@ or war—does not disqualify one from receiving the Eucharist. But voting in a way rejecting the Church teachings on abortion does

The point relevant to voting is at the end:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] 

The debate over this passage is over what remote material cooperation means and what is considered a proportionate reason. A link to a 2016 article I wrote explaining this can be found HERE. My summary was:

The action of voting for a pro-abortion politician without directly supporting abortion^€ does make the moral evil possible (material cooperation). That action is remote because, while it does not directly cause abortion, it still makes the continuation of abortion possible. Therefore, a vote for such a candidate requires a reason that justifies electing a person who will defend the right to abort over one million babies a year.

This all makes clear that we must not vote for a candidate because he supports evil, and if we vote for a candidate despite his evil, we had better have a proportionate reason that will justify remotely enabling the evil. 

Voting for a Minor Party is NOT the Same as Voting for an Evil Candidate

But what the Memorandum does not include in “remote cooperation with evil” is voting for a minor party that otherwise fits the moral qualifications. Bishop Conley of Nebraska wrote an article on the subject in 2016. In it, he raises a very wise point:

My third point is that when we vote, we need to carefully consider the specifics of each race. Blind partisanship can be dangerous, and we have to look past political rhetoric and media alarmism to make prudent discernments.  

In each race, we need to discern whether there is a candidate who can advance human dignity, the right to life, and the common good. When there is, we should feel free to vote for that candidate—whether they are a member of a major party or not. In extraordinary circumstances, some Catholics may decide, in good conscience, there is not a suitable candidate for some particular office and abstain from voting in that particular race.  

We also need to remember that we are not responsible for the votes of other people.  Choosing not to vote for “Candidate A” is not the same as actively voting for “Candidate B.” No Catholic should feel obliged to vote for one candidate just to prevent the election of another.

We should remember this point well. One is not obligated to vote for someone believed to be a bad candidate simply because they can win—especially if one’s conscience does not permit it.

Conclusion 

It is especially false for a member of the laity to say that the Catholic who does not vote for a preferred candidate is guilty of sin and to blame if the worst candidate wins. Those who make that argument are usurping the authority of the Church to pressure people into following their personal beliefs. If the Catholic voter believes that a vote for Candidate A is the best moral choice, then let him set forth his reasoning in a way that convinces, not one that tries to coerce those who disagree. If we think that a person is following an erroneous conscience, then let us point out the teaching they missed, not behave in an arrogant manner.

______________________________

(*) For my non-American readers, a “Blue” state is going to vote Democrat. A “Red” state is going to vote Republican. A “Purple” state (mixture of Blue and Red) is evenly divided and could go either way. Since our national elections are essentially 51 state elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia) where the electoral votes of a state goes to the winner of the state, these “purple” states are important in determining who becomes President, as the Blue and Red electoral votes are virtually guaranteed (see the map for an example. It may not be accurate come November 2020).

(#) This needs to be stressed. The scrupulous person often sees sin where there is none, or mortal sin where the matter is venial. Such people need the gentle guidance of a spiritual director to avoid being driven to despair. Such people are especially vulnerable to partisan Catholics who insist it is sinful to vote differently than their own views.

(§) Yes, it’s addressed to that McCarrick. But the unworthiness of the recipient does not negate the truth of the document.

(@) With Pope Francis refining the Catechism on the Death Penalty, that might change.

(€) If I rewrote this today, I probably would have phrased it “without intending to support abortion” to avoid giving the impression that indirectly supporting abortion is okay.

Deafening Our Conscience Through Outrage

Everyone notices the wrongdoing done by other people. We see something that seems unjust and we are outraged. We demand instantaneous retraction and until that is done, the one we see as guilty loses all rights to being treated as a human person. If that person is a member of the clergy, he is treated as if he forfeits all rights to the respect and submission due his office.

Meanwhile, more often than not, people refuse to consider their own wrongdoing as anything worth considering. Refusing obedience to the Church because their teachings and actions do not mesh with one’s own beliefs is not recognized as disobedience. Instead it’s treated as “standing up against evil,” where everyone imagines they are a miniature St. Paul, withstanding an erring Peter to his face.

The problem is, we are not like St. Paul. We’re more like the Pharisee who treats the sinner—or the one we think is sinning—as beneath contempt while thinking we’re superior because we don’t sin... or, if we do, at least we don’t sin as badly as them.

That’s a dangerous attitude. It shows we’ve forgotten or ignored our own guilt. As long as we aren’t as bad (in our own eyes) as them, we’re the good ones, the wise ones. That’s a dangerous attitude because it shows we we have become deaf to our conscience. As Benedict XVI put it:

“The Pharisee is no longer aware that he too is guilty. He is perfectly at ease with his own conscience. But this silence of his conscience makes it impossible for God and men to penetrate his carapace—whereas the cry of conscience that torments the tax collector opens him to receive truth and love. Jesus can work effectively among sinners because they have not become inaccessible behind the screen of an erring conscience, which would put them out of reach of the changes that God awaits from them—and from us. Jesus cannot work effectively among the righteous because they sense no need for forgiveness and repentance; their conscience no longer accuses them but only justifies them.”

—Values in a Time of Upheaval, p. 82

When we are deaf to conscience, we justify the evil we do, saying it’s not as bad as the evil they do, therefore it’s unimportant. We protest, asking “Why does the Church focus on us when those people are doing worse? What we forget is that the deadliest sin for an individual is the one that sends that individual to hell. 

So you don’t support abortion? Congratulations. You’ve none nothing more than demanded of you. But if you’re committing other sins while refusing to acknowledge and repent of them, you might be no better off in the eyes of God—even if the magnitude of your sins are objectively less.

Our Lord shocked the Pharisees when He said, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.” [Matthew 21:31 (NABRE)]. If He wanted to shock us equally today, He might say, “the pro-abortion politicians and cowardly bishops” (to name two popular targets of revulsion). If they repent but we do not, then they are in the same situation as the tax collectors [§] while we are in the same situation as the Pharisees. This doesn’t mean, “treat sins as unimportant.” It means “don’t exalt yourself just because you haven’t done that.” 

Or, as St. John Chrysostom, (Homily III on 2 Timothy), discusses on our focus on the great sins of others:

“Let each therefore, with an upright conscience, entering into a review of what he has done, and bringing his whole life before him, consider, whether he is not deserving of chastisements and punishments without number? And when he is indignant that some one, who has been guilty of many bad actions, escapes with impunity; let him consider his own faults, and his indignation will cease. For those crimes appear great, because they are in great and notorious matters; but if he will enquire into his own, he will perhaps find them more numerous.”

So, when we see sin in the Church—especially when it seems to go unnoticed—it’s not wrong to want justice and reform. But it is wrong to play the Pharisee, using the sins of others to justify ourselves. We might be risking our souls by using another’s sins as an excuse to ignore our own wrongdoing.

_______________

[§] To put it in historical context: Tax collectors (publicani) of the Roman Empire were not the equivalent of the modern IRS. Their greed and corruption ruined and destabilized entire provinces. 

Is it Time to Acknowledge the Elephant in the Room?

Over the past 30-odd years, there’s been chaos and rebellion in the Church. It didn’t start with Pope Francis, and it’s not limited to one faction. This confusion has been about like-minded Catholics confusing their ideology with the Catholic Faith and labeling whoever disagreed with the ideology as disagreeing with the Church.

The problem is that certain Church teachings superficially resemble political positions. So when a Pope stressed a teaching, it was easy to identify it with the political position that happened to superficially agree with. From there, the teaching is used to either promote the political view the Church “agrees” with or to blast the Church for becoming “political.”

Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge the elephant in the room—if a person objects to a teaching from a Pope, it’s not because that person is faithful to the “true” Church. Rather the person is a dissenter from the obedience required.

This problem was always present in the Church, but it was only obvious after Francis became our Pope. Up to that point, conservatives claimed to be defenders of the faith taught by the magisterium while liberals argued they were defending what Jesus intended the Church to be. When Pope Francis became Pope, the conservatives claimed they were defending what Jesus intended the Church to be while liberals claimed they were right all along.

Who was right? Neither one. Both factions merely agreed with the Church only as long as the Church taught what they already held. Should the Church emphasize a teaching contrary to their politics, the individual at odds with the teaching accuses the Church of “becoming political,” and invokes their obligation of conscience to reject the magisterium. But this is a misuse of what conscience is for. As the Church document Donum Veritatis (#38) teaches:

The properly formed conscience isn’t contrasted against the magisterium. It assumes following the magisterium. If one breaks this link between conscience and magisterium, they effectively break their link with Christ through the refusal of obedience.

This is where we get a chorus of “but what about...” But we know Our Lord made a distinction between the teaching authority and the personal behavior (cf. Matthew 23:1-3). The sins or failures of a Pope or bishop is neither permission to emulate nor permission to disobey. No doubt some bishops turned a blind eye to wrongdoing. No doubt the Pope was misled when he thought that the claims of abuse in Chile were calumny. But these things do not take away from the authority to teach in a binding manner.

When we recognize this, it becomes clear that “whataboutism” is an excuse, not a justification. It doesn’t permit us to withhold obedience. So those who cite these things as a reason to refuse submission are not showing a higher obedience. They’re showing disobedience.

In fact, they’re showing behavior similar to the rise of Protestantism. While it started with a desire to reform abuses, it presumed that different interpretations of Scripture and past teachings were proof that the Church had gone wrong but they had not. 

This leads us to the decision we must make:

1. Either God protects His Church from teaching error, or
2. God does not protect His Church from teaching error.

If God protects His Church from teaching error, then we must trust that even when an individual bishop errs or a Pope makes a bad judgment call, God prevents the Church under the governance of the current vicar of Christ from teaching error. But, if God doesn’t protect His Church from teaching error (which contradicts Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20) then we can never know whether the Church was right or wrong when a heresy or schism arose. The Arians might have been right. The Eastern Orthodox might have been right. Or Luther, etc. If the Church can err today, we can have no assurance that we didn’t err in the past.

It’s time to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Those who claim that the Church is in error are dissenting, believing that the Church—protected by Christ—is currently in error while they are not. That claim is incompatible with our faith in Christ and the belief that He intended to build a Church on the rock of Peter that would not fail.

Once we acknowledge the elephant, we can deal with it and perhaps overcome the problems facing the Church: within and without.

Misrepresenting Conscience

Me, reacting to Catholics who claim that they are free to do what the Church condemns.

After the Supreme Court decision overturning the injustice against a Colorado bakery, I encountered many Catholics on social media who argued that the real Catholic position was in opposing the bakery. The arguments showed a profound confusion about what conscience is, and our obligation to follow it. 

Putting it briefly, when our conscience says we must or must not do something, we must obey it. Doing otherwise is to act in a way we are convinced is morally wrong. Now conscience is not infallible. A person can think that a morally neutral area is evil and refuse to do something that they could morally do. It is even possible that a person who, through ignorance they cannot avoid (i.e. somebody who has no way of learning the truth, but would if they could) feels obligated to do something wrong—like idolatry—because they think they do evil if they don’t do it.

We must not confuse this with a person who deadens their conscience so they do not hear it when they do evil. All of us have the obligation to seek out the truth and follow it—not to just presume that the absence of warning means an act is okay. As Catholics, we profess there is objective morality. Some things we must never do, regardless of circumstances. Other actions can become evil if we do them with an evil intention or under inappropriate circumstances. Again, we have an obligation to learn these things and do right.

Gaudium et Spes #16

Here’s the important thing to remember. Church teaching is how we properly form conscience. If we recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Our Lord and given the authority to bind and loose, then we cannot invoke our conscience as a justification to disobey the Church.

Donum Veritatis #38

It is true that a non-Catholic, not recognizing the authority of the Church, will not realize that the Church is a trustworthy source of learning what we ought to do. But that does not excuse them from failing to seek out and live according to the truth to the best of their ability. So, the state has no right to compel a person to do what they think is evil. But note that this is not the same as the state tolerating things that disrupt the public good. This often gets distorted by people who confuse conscience and preference. The state can forbid the person who thinks abortion is acceptable from performing or acquiring one. After all, thinking something is “okay” does not give one the right to do it. But the state cannot coerce a person who thinks abortion is wrong into performing or acquiring one. The first case is an example of the state promoting the public good. The second violates conscience.

The state can also prevent discrimination against one group of people, but this involves some distinctions. We do not mean that we must accept whatever evil a group might support. What we mean is the state cannot allow one group to be treated as less human than another. So, the state can forbid actions that treat people with same-sex attraction as less than human. It does not mean the state can force people to treat homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual relationships. The state simply has no right to legitimize things that go against objective truth.

So what we had in the Colorado bakery case was not a case that refused to serve people with same sex attraction. We had a baker who refused to participate in certain events: “same sex marriage,” Halloween, and bachelor parties. The Catholic would probably disagree with him on Halloween. Assuming it is not used to celebrate the occult, this is a morally neutral area. I think he makes a good point on bachelors parties. Given how the modern tendency is to use them as an excuse for debauchery, a Christian might decide not to supply those events because of scandal. As for the case of “same sex marriage,” the overlooked issue is that the demand that the baker supply a cake is a demand to recognize “same sex marriage” as being equal to real marriage. No informed Christian can accept that or act in a way that appears to support it.

When it comes to knowing, loving, and serving God, we cannot choose to do wrong or refuse to do good when a properly formed conscience demands it of us. Meanwhile to avoid an improperly formed conscience, we are obligated to constantly seek out and follow what is right to the best of our ability. But feigned ignorance and refusing to learn will lead to judgment.

God is Not Mocked: Thoughts on the Use and Misuse of Conscience

⁷ Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, ⁸ because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. (Galatians 6:7–8).

Introduction

A common theme among combox warriors, when it comes to bishops’ conferences issuing guidelines for the divorced and remarried receiving the Eucharist is, “The Floodgates are opened.” The assumption is the Church intends a loophole for Catholics in a state of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist. Now, it’s not my intention to analyze these different guidelines and judge them in terms of fidelity to the Church. Rather, I want to talk about conscience in general.

Some Catholics seem to make the same mistake over the term “conscience,” as they did by equating the term “mercy” with laxity. Now it is true that some Catholics abuse the term “conscience,” treating it as if it meant “do what you will.” But inserting that meaning, where the Church speaks on “conscience,” would be a gross misrepresentation of the term. As Gaudium et Spes #19 points out:

Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame

 Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).

In other words, the person who thinks of the Eucharist as a “right” without considering where they stand before God will have to answer for an unworthy reception.

Basics of Conscience

Conscience is not a case of “feeling good about something.” Conscience tells us I must do X, or I must not do Y. Nor is conscience an infallible guide. If a person receives false information on right or wrong, their conscience can lead them to doing something objectively wrong while thinking it right, or scrupulously thinking something harmless is wrong. That is why the Church says we must form our consciences in accord with her teaching. If we have doubts on whether something would be morally right, we have the obligation not to act against our doubts until we resolve the issue.

What’s less known however is when conscience tells us we must act in a certain way, to refuse to follow conscience means we are choosing to do what we believe is morally wrong. So a person with a malformed conscience who believes it is morally wrong to do something, he must not do it. This scandalizes some Catholics who see this and thinks it means “justifying” a moral evil. It does not. What it does is reduce the culpability for a person who has no way of knowing better if they should reach a false conclusion in good faith. 

However, people cannot refuse to seek out the truth. Nor can they say their conscience “permits” something if they have merely formed bad habits that deafen them to the truth. Again, Gaudium et Spes points out:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. 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. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

 

 Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).

In other words, if a person is ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own, they are not held accountable for their ignorance. But if they could have learned if they tried or if they deafened themselves to their conscience, they will be judged. 

God is Not Mocked

If the Pope, bishop, or priest insists on dialogue with the sinner so they can learn to do what is right, but the person whom subsidiarity makes responsible fails to do so, it is they who are to blame for the laxity or rigidity which leads the person of good faith astray. Or if this person does meet his responsibility but the sinner refuses to listen, then the sinner is to blame.

This is not some modernist error. This is the teaching of Scripture:

¹ The word of the Lord came to me: ² Son of man, speak to your people and tell them: When I bring the sword against a land, if the people of that land select one of their number as a sentinel for them, ³ and the sentinel sees the sword coming against the land, he should blow the trumpet to warn the people. ⁴ If they hear the trumpet but do not take the warning and a sword attacks and kills them, their blood will be on their own heads. ⁵ They heard the trumpet blast but ignored the warning; their blood is on them. If they had heeded the warning, they could have escaped with their lives. ⁶ If, however, the sentinel sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the sword attacks and takes someone’s life, his life will be taken for his own sin, but I will hold the sentinel responsible for his blood (Ezekiel 33:1–6).

Since the Pope has routinely called for people to turn back to Our Lord, told bishops and pastors that they are to talk with sinners to help them understand the teaching of the Church and to investigate the individual situations of the person, we cannot say he is silent as a watchman. People may misrepresent him by falsely trying to insist that his conditions, which apply to a limited amount of people, are a universal change in teaching, but these are falsehoods on the part of the person, not the Pope.

Conclusion

And that’s why I have problems with combox warriors treating talk about conscience as if it meant discarding Church teaching. Yes, people can lie to their confessors in order to receive the Eucharist unworthily, but God will not be deceived. Yes, some confessors may fail in their duty to form consciences, but that does not make the duty to obey conscience any less. Those in error through no fault of their own will be treated more mercifully for doing wrong while thinking it right, than those who know they do wrong and do it anyway.

So let’s not assume that when the Pope speaks of mercy and conscience, he means them to justify evasion of doing right. Nor should we assume he approves those who misuse his writings for their own purposes. His teaching is about reconciling sinners with God, not giving people a “Get out of Hell Free” card.

Conscience, Persecution, and Sins of Omission

It is common sense that nobody wants to suffer if they can avoid it. It’s also true that the Church does not demand we seek out persecution. But, if conscience does put us at odds with a government, we have to accept suffering or even death rather than do what is morally wrong. This has always been our obligation. We cannot appeal to what a feared government might do in our time if we don’t compromise on what we believe to avoid that evil. That means we can’t try to appease this immoral government might do if elected, and it means we can’t violate our conscience to block the immoral government from taking power.

That doesn’t mean we have to be passive sheep, taking no action against evil. It does mean we can’t do evil so good may come of it. That’s hard because sinful nature leads us to justify wrongdoing by excusing the evil done by saying either it’s not evil or it’s not important. So, some Catholics try justifying a vote for a pro-abortion candidate by downplaying the evil of abortion compared to issues they just happen to agree with. Other Catholics try to downplay the evils the other candidate does or supports by arguing it’s not important compared to the evils they’re trying to stop.

Catholics have used both tactics, fearing what the more loathed candidate will do. That doesn’t mean they’re acting out of bad will. Some Catholics might be sincere and are unaware they have reasoned badly, putting them in opposition to the Church without realizing it. That’s a reminder we should always be evaluating our views in comparison to what the Church teaches. One thing I’ve learned over decades of studying Catholic teaching is just because we don’t know the answer to something doesn’t mean there is no answer.

I believe we must start by not panicking. 2017 will not be the first year the Catholic Church was ever persecuted. Nor is it likely to be the worst persecution ever experienced. To be honest, I suspect Christians living in ISIS held territory wish they had our problems instead of theirs. I don’t want to commit the fallacy of relative privation here. It’s false to say because we’re not suffering as badly as another group of people, it means we’re not suffering. No, what I mean is we need to realize that the world has persecuted the Church in different ways and to different degrees throughout history. So it may wind up being our turn to take a stand even if it means ostracism, lawsuits, fines, or imprisonment.

What makes this frightening is that we have been unjustly harassed by the government, but we haven’t physically suffered for our beliefs. Now we might, and we want to avoid this at all costs. That can be dangerous. During Diocletian’s persecution in the early fourth century, Christians who had been undergoing a period of relative respite and safety were suddenly targeted all across the Roman Empire. Caught by surprise, many yielded to the state rather than suffer. That’s the danger of being so afraid of suffering that we betray Our Lord.

Like I said above, It’s natural that Catholics are trying to make the best of a bad situation and limit the evil suffered. But, again, we can’t do evil so good may come of it (see CCC #1756, 1789). That means we can’t violate our conscience (which we have an obligation to form by the teaching of the Church) and we can’t call evil “not important” to justify embracing a bad means to seek protection. That means we need to be aware of what the Church teaches and why it’s important so we don’t treat evil as unimportant. We need to seriously consider the proposed solution to see if it requires us to violate our conscience by choosing to do evil or to tolerate an evil which outweighs the good sought.

What people are getting wrong is this: It’s not a case of saying, “I will tolerate the lesser evil from candidate X to stop abortion or World War III.” It’s about saying, “I will be silent about these evils so candidate X will win and stop abortion or World War III.” It’s choosing to commit a sin of omission so good might come from it—and the Church condemns doing evil so good may come of it. Even if someone thinks Candidate X is more likely to limit evil, we can’t be silent about his or her own evils. So, even if we want to vote for Candidate X, we have to make clear we will oppose that evil if he or she is elected and insist that the candidate repent of that position—and that is what American Catholics are not doing. Instead, Catholics who support one of the major parties are telling others to be silent on these evils lest they get the wrong person elected.

God tells us to be holy and keep His commandments. The Penitential Rite at Mass requires us to say,

I confess to almighty God

and to you, my brothers and sisters,

that I have greatly sinned,

in my thoughts and in my words,

in what I have done and in what I have failed to do

There’s no secret that we sin if we do wrong, if we fail to do right, and if we fail to speak against sin. If we are sorry for our sins, we must make a firm purpose of amendment, to go and sin no more. Yes, we may fall into the same sins again. But that is different from having the intention to continue in the same sin, refusing to change.

Where does that leave us? It forces each one of us to consider what the Church teaches and where a preferred candidate stands. If the candidate promotes evil, we cannot be silent about it, and we certainly can’t accept a candidate who openly says they will do intrinsic evil (which includes abortion). So, if we must vote for a candidate whose evil seems less than the other candidate, we cannot be silent about the other candidate’s evil out of fear this candidate will lose if we speak out. Is it possible this will lead to persecution? It is. But in this case, it would be a persecution we would have to accept because to be silent when we must speak is to do evil, and to do evil so good might come of it is forbidden to us.

So, let us do what our properly formed conscience tells us to do and recognize that we must do what is right before God—even if persecution comes as a result.

Martyrdom and a Pinch of Incense, 2016 Style

The proconsul then said to him [St. Polycarp], “I have wild beasts at hand; to these will I cast thee, except thou repent.” But he answered, “Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; and it is well for me to be changed from what is evil to what is righteous.”¹⁰ But again the proconsul said to him, “I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, seeing thou despisest the wild beasts, if thou wilt not repent.” But Polycarp said, “Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”

 

 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 41.

I think I finally figured out what really bothers me most of all about the 2016 elections: Catholics insisting we must vote for their candidate, and if we will not, we are responsible for all the evils that happen as a result. In doing so, these individuals are, even if they don’t realize it, arguing that we have to sacrifice certain moral teachings as “less important” so their preferred candidate can protect us from the evils of the other side.  That means, depending on whom they support, either pretending that abortion is not as important as the issues we happen to be concerned with or pretending we can ignore other issues we dislike so long as we support abortion. Such Catholics insist concern over the moral issues they downplay are really too unimportant to take a stand on with other things at stake . . . especially if you live in a swing state.

I hear this, and it seems reasonable, except for one thing. Many saints went to their deaths despite being told that it was a small thing to offer a pinch of incense to state gods—they didn’t even have to be sincere, so long as they would go through the motions. The martyrs chose death because they realized it was not a small matter. It was a witness that they recognized the authority of the state gods, which meant they denied the full authority of God over the universe. Even an insincere witness could lead people astray. To be faithful to God, the martyr knew he had to give up His life.

Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury:
how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” 

As I see it, the problem is the arguments saying we need to support Candidate X to oppose Candidate Y, and that concerns for other issues is putting lesser issues first is a misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching on double effect. Double Effect means that we do not will an evil so good may come of it. In fact, if it were possible to prevent the evil we would do everything possible to avoid it. Also, the unwilled evil must be less than the desired good. So, for example, we endure side effects from medicines for the good of making us well. But if the medicine had a greater than 50% chance of killing the patient for a good like healing a minor illness, we could not choose to prescribe that medicine.

In this election, the evils are avoidable. We choose not to violate our conscience and we choose not to vote for a candidate who will bring about evils. That’s the part people forget when they do a moral calculus. Yes, the Church is quite clear that the right to life is the most fundamental right. We can’t do things that support such a candidate who favors that evil without a proportionate reason (i.e., a reason which outweighs the evil done). Yes, that teaching is well known. The problem is people wrongly think, “Unless Catholics vote for this candidate, this evil will happen, so they need to stop worrying about conscience and vote for this candidate.”

But doing what the conscience forbids is evil, even if we hope to achieve a good end. Saving our lives or our freedoms are good things to strive for. But if it comes at the cost of sinning against God, we cannot choose the sin to save ourselves. That’s true whether we are told to burn a pinch of incense at the altar or whether we’re told to ignore our conscience and vote for a candidate so good may come of it.

So, how should a Catholic vote? I’m not going to tell you, “You must vote for X.” All I can do is urge each person to consider the evils each candidate promotes and how to respond in light of Church teaching. Because the Church rejects abortion so emphatically, I do not believe a Catholic with a proper understanding can invoke “proportionate reasons” in 2016. But does that mean we must support the other major party candidate by default?

No, we can’t accept such a candidate by default. It is possible that both candidates are morally offensive. A hypothetical “Hitler vs. Stalin” shows the flaws with “either-or” thinking in elections. What we have to do is consider a candidate’s positions independently and see how they compare with Church teaching. Of course, we have to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (i.e., insist on not voting for any candidate who is not flawless). But we can’t say that we can ignore a candidate’s unjust positions on the grounds of “he’s not as bad as the other guy.”

See, the Church is quite clear that we may not do evil so good may come of it (CCC# 1789). That obligation doesn’t change if we live in a swing state, or if we think that the stakes are vital. The Catechism also says:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So, even if one wants to claim that this election is an “emergency” and we have to stop one candidate by voting for the opposite major party candidate, an emergency does not justify doing evil. The problem is. I’m seeing many supporters saying, “That issue isn’t important in an emergency!” But it is. Sins that cry out to God for vengeance include abortion and same sex marriage, yes. But it also includes oppressing the poor and the alien, and defrauding the worker of his wages. In my opinion, if one thinks they must vote for a morally bad candidate to limit evil, they must speak out against that moral evil and make clear that, while they think abortion is the greater evil, they still intend to oppose the moral evils of their candidate. Then, if that candidate is elected, they must publicly follow through. But that’s not what’s happening in the social media I’ve seen.

Regardless of how we vote in 2016, we need to put our Catholic faith first. That means we don’t pretend moral evils in a candidate don’t exist or aren’t important. It means we evaluate our choices in light of being a Catholic. We study the faith and form our consciences in accord with it. We also must pray so we will accept God’s will even if it is not our will. If God wills 2016 to be a sort of “Babylonian Captivity” which forces American Catholics to grow in our faith through some level of government harassment or even persecution, we must not compromise to avoid it. We should remember the witness of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste:

The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste.

After they had been torn by scourges and iron hooks they were chained together, and led to a lingering death. It was a cruel winter, and they were condemned to lie naked on the icy surface of a pond in the open air till they were frozen to death. But they ran undismayed to the place of their combat, joyfully stripped off their garments, and with one voice besought God to keep their ranks unbroken. “Forty,” they cried, “we have come to combat; grant that forty may be crowned.” There were warm baths hard by, ready for any one amongst them who would deny Christ. The soldier who watched saw angels descending with thirty-nine crowns, and while he wondered at the deficiency in the number, one of the confessors lost heart, renounced his faith, and, crawling to the fire, died body and soul at the spot where he expected relief. But the soldier was inspired to confess Christ and take his place, and again the number of forty was complete. 

 

 John Gilmary Shea, Pictorial Lives of the Saints (New York; Cincinnati; Chicago: Benziger Brothers, 1887), 128–129.

If we would save our lives or our security at the cost of compromise, there is no guarantee we will succeed. So, let’s stop bullying others who will not vote for your candidate. Let’s stop pretending a sin is “not important” when our preferred candidate is guilty of it. If we vote in a way which compromises our faith, or leads one to think our Catholic faith is an ideology that can be set aside when convenient, we do evil like the one who would burn a pinch of incense at the altar of false gods in exchange for safety.

So, no matter how we vote in 2016, let’s be sure it’s a vote that witnesses what our Catholic faith holds to be true. And, let’s also make sure that our actions after the election continues to bear witness—especially if the preferred candidate wins.

Avoiding Sin When We Promote Candidates

¹ He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. ² It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. (Luke 17:1–2).

Introduction

As Christians, we can’t lose sight of our ultimate end when living in the world. Therefore, we must approach what we do in this world with that end in mind. That doesn’t mean we should be so spiritual that we deny we have anything to do good in the world. After all, there are corporal works of mercy which involve helping a person’s physical needs. Our Lord warned us of Hell if we ignore helping people with these things.

However, when we do good in the world, we must not stop at considering the worldly benefits or worldly losses might come from our actions. Because we believe that our life ultimately has a supernatural end which involves being eternally with God or being eternally separated from Him, we cannot do things which put us in opposition to God and risk damnation. If an action is evil, we cannot do it—even if we want to do it to achieve a good result.

As we count down the final days of this election, Catholics seem to lose sight of this obligation. With two fatally flawed candidates running for President, and the knowledge that one of them will be elected, we are scrambling to find a choice that will limit evil or, failing that, finding a candidate who we believe will not be morally wrong to vote for, even if he has no chance of winning. The problem is, the two major party candidates are so loathed by large portions of the voters that those trying to block one perceived as a greater evil have staged their opposition to that candidate in apocalyptic terms. If we don’t stop Candidate X, we will be forced to suffer all sorts of evils. 

From there, it’s a short step to arguing that the only way to stop Candidate X is to vote for Candidate Y, who is also unsavory but promises to oppose X on certain issues that concern us. Because of that, we must support Candidate Y and overlook the moral faults of that candidate because they are “not as important” as what Candidate X will do.

How Far Do We Go In Defending Our Beliefs Before We Betray What Truly Matters?

The problem I see in the above scenario is people have stopped thinking of the election in terms of “What must I do to be faithful to God” and replaced it with “If you don’t vote for my candidate, whatever evils happen are your fault!” That’s hijacking the authority of the Catholic Church in the name of promoting a candidate . . . something that makes us into the false teachers the Bible warned us about.

Our primary mission, given us by Our Lord, tells us we must baptize, preach the Gospel and tell them what God has commanded (Matthew 20:18-19). This is something we must do regardless of whether we are treated well or mistreated. We can’t sacrifice an eternal truth in the name of a political candidate whom we think it is vital to be elected to avoid mistreatment.

Think of Henry VIII demanding an annulment of his marriage. Think of Pope Clement VII considering the consequences of this decision. If he refuses the annulment, England is lost to the Church to the Protestant Reformation, and endangering many souls. All he has to do to avoid this is to consent to the annulment. It should be an easy decision, except for one thing. The investigation shows that the marriage was indeed valid and unbreakable. To protect the Church from hardship, he has to give his assent to what is morally wrong.

The easy decision was the one which was impossible to make if Pope Clement VII would be faithful to Our Lord. So he made a decision which seemed foolish from a worldly perspective. He denied the annulment. Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church in England, leading to the martyrdom of many faithful, persecution for about 300 years for many more, and the abandonment of the Catholic faith by more still. 

I’m not trying to equate any candidate with the historical players in this event. I’m trying to show that what seems like a commonsensical approach to defend the Church from persecution might actually betray what we believe.

Bullying Fellow Catholics in the Name of God 

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 435.

One of the more appalling things I have seen in 2016 is the bullying of some Catholics by others to vote in a certain way. This is not limited to one political party or ideology. This has been done by Catholics who are conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, or even the “None of the above” faction emerging. The bullying involves telling Catholics they disagree with that if they don’t vote a certain way, they are responsible for the evil. They especially target Catholic voters who live in swing states. They claim these voters must vote for Candidate X or Y, to avoid sin because of the evils associated with the other side. I’ve seen accusations like “sins of omission” thrown around recklessly. 

Such Catholics have no right to make such a demand and, if the bullied Catholic believes it is wrong to vote for this candidate, the bullying Catholic is actually trying to coerce the other into violating his conscience, which falls under the sin of scandal, trying to lead someone into sin. Remember, Our Lord said it was better for such a person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around their neck than it would be to face the consequences of leading someone into sin. They forget that when the Pope himself says, “I’ll just say a word: Study the proposals well, pray and choose in conscience” in response to a question about the American elections, they cannot demand a person forsake his conscience to vote for their candidate.

The Teaching is “Limit Evil,” Not “Ignore Evils We Think Are Less Important”

²² You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? ²³ You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? ²⁴ For, as it is written, “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.” (Romans 2:22–24).

The Catholic obligation is learning for ourselves or informing others about the moral teachings we must follow so we might all understand our obligations and why we must follow them. The Church does not endorse candidates. Nor does she demand we vote for a certain platform. What she does do is teach (which requires assent—agreement) the teachings we must follow. In following we must promote good, and limit evil. The problem is many Catholics are redefining this in a way which benefits their candidate. Evils their candidate supports are considered “less important” and explained away through the “special pleading” fallacy. Evils the other candidate supports are portrayed as unforgivable.

This results in making our Catholic faith look hypocritical. Some Catholics insist on people being sexually moral, and give our support for a candidate who boasted of sexual immorality. Others insist on defending the oppressed and give support to a candidate who supports abortion as a right. This kind of “witness” leads people to think our values are to be set aside as we wish. No, we aren’t “electing a saint,” (a popular retort when the moral failings of a preferred candidate are pointed out). But the evils a candidate refuses to be sorry for can be huge warning signs about how he or she will behave in office.

Yes, Some Evils Are Worse Than Others . . . 

We do need to acknowledge some evils are worse. The Church is quite clear that the right to life is the primary right from which all others depend. So a candidate who will violate this right is unfit for office. The Church names abortion and euthanasia “unspeakable crimes” (Gaudium et Spes #51) St. John Paul II says that trying to defend other rights without defending the right to life is “false and illusory” (Christifideles Laici #38). Even the Ratzinger Memorandum, which some people try to pass off as permission to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, is actually a strict limitation on when it is permissible. It condemns voting for such a candidate because they are pro-abortion as a mortal sin, and it places voting for such a candidate for other reasons under the obligations of double effect—the evil effect cannot be willed and must be less than the good sought.

But, in 2016, there is no situation where we have to tolerate of the evil of abortion in order to stop a worse evil. So the remote cooperation cannot be justified in this case. An informed Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate or party in 2016. Nor can such a Catholic appeal to “conscience” in opposition to the Church. The Church is the measure by which our consciences are properly formed. As the CDF put it,

38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

 

 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Donum Veritatis) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990).

So, the Catholic who votes for a pro-abortion candidate in the name of “conscience” has a malformed conscience that cannot be justified. The Church has made it clear we cannot rebel against her teachings, and we cannot pretend she has concealed her teaching. Ignorance is not an excuse for us.

. . . But Just Because One Candidate is Disqualified Does Not Make the Other Candidate Good

However, some Catholics who rightly oppose pro-abortion candidates and parties commit the either-or fallacy. They assume that because one candidate is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, we must support the other. But that is not necessarily the case. It is quite possible for both major party candidates of being unworthy of our support, and Catholics can say, “I will not vote for either one” without being responsible if the candidate who supports the greater evil gets elected. This is a case of refusing to do what one believes is evil so good may (hopefully) come from it.

What the political bullies forget is this:

• We may not do evil so good may come of it (CCC #1756)
• Doing what our conscience condemns is evil
• Therefore we may not do what our conscience condemns so good may come of it.

If a Catholic’s conscience is properly formed by Church teaching, and the Catholic reaches a conclusion different from yours on what must be done, you cannot coerce him into doing what he thinks is wrong just because you are afraid of the consequences of your preferred candidate losing. If you think he has gotten something wrong, you can politely and charitably (two things lacking this campaign) dialogue with the aim of understanding why he thinks this way and offering another perspective.

But accusing that person of willful ignorance or bad will, or of disobeying the teaching that leads him to his conclusion in the first place is unjust. It is rash judgment at best, and calumny at worst. 

Conclusion

I think many in 2016 have lost sight of what we are obligated to do as Catholics. There is a trend of downplaying real evils as if they were unimportant if acknowledging them means harming a candidate. Yes, sometimes Double Effect can permit us to tolerate an unwilled evil if the good is greater. But that does not mean we can ignore or downplay the evil we see as lesser. Nor can we play the hypocrite, defending a candidate from the evils we denounced when committed by another candidate. We have to acknowledge them as evils, not make excuses for them.

Even if one decides that such a candidate is a lesser evil they may vote for, they must be able to demonstrate that they are not holding a double standard. They must show why their candidate’s evil is less than the evil of the candidate they oppose in such a way that does not excuse the evil of their candidate. They must recognize that some faithful Catholics can question whether either candidate can be trusted to lead morally.

Finally, we must remember that two faithful Catholics who properly formed their consciences (that is—they’re not voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil) can reach different decisions of the fitness of a candidate. In such a case, we must respect their properly formed conscience even though our prudential judgment leads us to a different conclusion. If the shepherds of the Church will not condemn their decision, we cannot condemn it as going against the Church.

Doing What is Right vs. Doing What We Want

The False Understanding of Conscience

The concept of conscience is often misrepresented. People think their feelings and preferences are conscience. So, if a person doesn’t see anything wrong with a behavior, he thinks he is “obeying" his conscience, when he follows his impulses. Then, when someone suggests that he is doing wrong, he gets angry and accuses the other person of pushing their beliefs on him and demands that people respect his “conscience.” Under this view of “conscience,” sociopaths and war criminals can appeal to it to justify their actions. Since society can’t survive under that way of behaving, people have turned to the government, expecting it to make laws mandating how we should behave. People who agree with what the government decrees, hail it as good. People who disagree accuse the government of violating rights.

This abuse of the term conscience is camouflage for partisan behavior. As a result, when Christians appeal to conscience in opposing those government mandates which contradict their moral obligations, people assume the Christians are trying to impose a partisan platform on others while refusing to play by the rules. They don’t understand how the Church can put their "feelings and preferences” above the “rights” to abortion, contraception and same sex “marriage.” This conflict exists because modern society does not understand what conscience is and hears the words of the Church but misses the true meaning. The Catechism describes conscience as follows:

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.⁴⁹ It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

The True Understanding of Conscience

Far from being a feeling, conscience judges our actions as good or evil, warning us to do good and avoid evil, and judging us when we fail to live up to it. It may tell us to go against what our feelings and preferences urge us to do. Whether it is laying down one’s life in martyrdom because conscience tells us we cannot deny Our Lord, or acting against what our friends urge because we think they are wrong, conscience pushes us away from what we want in order to do what is right.

Once we understand this, what freedom of conscience requires from the state becomes clear. As Pope Leo XIII explained it in Libertas #30:

[T]hat every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong—a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear.

 

Claudia Carlen, ed., The Papal Encyclicals: 1878–1903 (Ypsilanti, MI: Pierian Press, 1990), 178.

Even if the government refuses to grant the freedom of conscience, we still have an obligation to do what is right in the eyes of God (see Acts 5:29). Many of the faithful have been martyred for making this choice. But I think we Western Christians have lost sight of this. Early saints often had a choice of denying Christ and living, or affirming belief in Him and dying for it. The faithful followed their conscience despite the heavy cost, and were faithful to God. That is something our feelings and preferences protest against.

The price of obeying conscience can be high, but we’re called to follow it anyway . . .

But we must remember: conscience is not an infallible guide by itself. A person who never has the opportunity or the interest might believe evil things are good, or good things are evil. We must form our consciences according to truth. This goes along with our obligation to constantly seek out and follow the truth. Since we are Christians, we believe the truth centers on God. Since we’re Catholics, we believe that the Church teaches because God has given her the right and duty to teach. So Catholics, if we want to be faithful, have to look to the Church to form our conscience. If the Church condemns what we are okay with, that is a good sign that our conscience has gone wrong. In such a case we need to look to the Church to re-form our conscience and live rightly. If we choose to ignore this obligation, we choose wrong.

The Evasion of Conscience

Tragically, I have seen people argue that Church teaching violates conscience when it forbids certain acts as against Catholic belief. People accuse bishops of violating conscience when they condemn the evils one favored party endorses as a right or condemns the vicious customs of a nation. People protest that since they see other evils as worse, the bishops are coercing them into doing something they see wrong.

But the Church explicitly rejects that argument. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith wrote in 1990:

38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised.

 

 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Donum Veritatis) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990).

Since we believe that God gave His Church the right and duty to decide how to apply the timeless teachings in each generation, we cannot set up our ill-formed conscience as having more authority. Since the magisterium is the guardian of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the bishops in union with the Pope, bind and loose in their own dioceses and we have the obligation to give our assent when they teach. (See Code of Canon Law #747-755)

If the bishop does not teach, then he is not demanding our assent and he is not violating conscience. If an individual bishop teaches error, his claims are not binding. But, in that case, the one who decides the proper interpretation of Church teaching is the present Pope and the bishops in communion with him—not the individual Catholic. Neither the radical traditionalist who scours over 16th century documents nor the modern dissenter who scours Vatican II documents can interpret Church teaching against the Church. 

As St. John Paul II pointed out when writing against the SSPX:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

 

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

 

 St. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 1988.

If one is a Catholic, one can’t claim to be faithful while refusing to obey the magisterium. A Catholic badly educated in the faith might misinterpret what Church teaching means, but once the Church says “This is what we mean,” we can no longer insist on our interpretation against the shepherds who teach.

Conclusion: Obedience to the Church is not Legalism but Faith

The link of conscience and the teaching of the Church is serious business, and not a matter of legalism. Because we believe in God and believe Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church to carry out the Great Commission and teach the world in His ways (Matthew 28:18-20). We can’t say our preferences are better than the Church teachings. We believe that God bestows great graces through the Catholic Church, and with these graces, we have no excuses that a non-Catholic might have. As the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium [#14] teaches, “If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

If the Church were nothing more than a human institution, the demand of assent would be tyranny. But to those who believe the Catholic Church was established by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, we have faith that what she teaches in matters of faith and morals is backed by God’s authority. To rebel against those whom God gives authority is not a sign of sanctity. It’s a sign of pride.