On Primacy of Conscience, Certain Conscience Judgments, and Acting in Good Faith

[[Sister Laurel, Do you think Nancy Pelosi can act out of primacy of conscience if her conscience is not well-formed? Abp Cordileone said that Pelosi needed to form her conscience further. If that is true how can she claim primacy of conscience?]]

Thanks for the question. It is not that I believe Rep Pelosi can act out of primacy of conscience; the Church teaches and I accept completely that she must act in this way and she must do so no matter the degree of formation and information that conscience has been given or achieved up to this point. To fail to act according to one's certain conscience judgment is always a sin because it means acting against the voice of God as one has discerned it in a given instance. (Note that this means one must follow one's conscience even when one is mistaken in one's prudential judgment!!) Conscience is absolutely sacrosanct. There we are alone with God. No one else can enter here, no authority, no institution, and no one can tell us what we must decide. In coming to what is called a "certain conscience judgment" we discern all of the values and disvalues present in the situation and preference these. Additionally, we pray, consider seriously what the Church and other authorities have to say which may and must be brought to bear on the situation. Even so, ultimately, the analysis, listening, discernment and deciding are our responsibility. Only we and God can know whether we act in good faith or not.

The point I made in my prior post is that one may, in fact, err in one's conscience judgment and still act in what we call "good faith". (The reference to a "certain" conscience judgment refers to the fact that one has discerned how God requires one to act, not to the inerrancy of the judgment one has come to.)  If Nancy Pelosi, for instance, were to try to come to a certain conscience judgment and in the process decide she had not taken sufficient care in forming or informing her conscience up to this point, the certain conscience judgment she could come to would involve recognizing she was not ready to make a decision in the matter and would impel her to greater formation/information. Ideally one's conscience judgment is both certain AND correct, but a conscience judgment can be "certain" without being correct so long as one acts in good faith.

It is important to realize that our consciences can always be better formed and informed. We can only decide and act as we are able at any given time. And we must act in terms of the conscience we have! It is therefore also important to understand that even if we are in error or our prudential conscience decision runs counter to Church teaching the Church herself still teaches we are obliged to follow our conscience. Both Aquinas and Innocent III wrote on this matter. Aquinas taught that if one's conscience required one disagree with the Church in any specific situation, then one must follow one's conscience even if it meant following it humbly right out of the Church due to excommunication, etc. Again, while one must continue throughout one's life to think, pray, and generally continue to form and inform one's conscience, when the time comes to decide, one must do so and act on the certain conscience judgment one comes to. This is part of the process of further forming one's conscience -- something that truly happens only as we learn to discern, prioritize, and preference the values and disvalues present in any given situation.

One misunderstanding regarding the formation and information of a conscience is that one's conscience judgment must comport with Church teaching or one has not got a well-formed conscience. I have heard this objection a lot, and it may be that Abp Cordileone was implying this when asked about Nancy Pelosi's conscience; here he replied she needed to [continue to] better form her conscience. During Vatican II a minority of Church Fathers sought to codify this position in the documents of the Council. The majority  of Fathers rejected this as counter Church tradition, which, they asserted, had already been well-represented in the documents and Tradition. Because we make conscience judgments in the presence of unique circumstances and competing values and disvalues which may be preferenced in different ways, no one but the person themselves can truly say that the person's conscience was badly formed nor that their conscience judgments were wrong. Again, no one can second guess us in this. Primacy of conscience is still the absolute requirement. As soon-to-be Cardinal Robert McElroy (San Diego) said recently: [[We (Bishops, the Institutional Church) are not replacing the consciences of our people. We are trying to help them as men and women [to] exercise those consciences in the political sphere.]]

Here too then, is one place where the recognition that "we are (all of us baptized) Church" becomes absolutely critical. The Institutional Church does not and in fact cannot pronounce on the "right thing" to do in every situation except in the abstract. She can pronounce on what is intrinsically evil and on the gravity of certain actions and, of course, we take such pronouncements very seriously indeed. Still, it takes a person of faith on the ground to discern the situation with all its values and disvalues, apply Church teaching as best we can, and then decide in light of one's own communion with God and wisdom how one is called to decide and behave in any specific situation. We bring the wisdom of the Church and the compassion and justice/mercy of God into specific situations where the institutional Church will never go otherwise. The capacity to do this, the ability to reason morally in complex and demanding situations with competing values and disvalues, is what moralists and Catholic Tradition mean by having a well-formed conscience. 

Here again it is important to restate that while the ideal conscience judgment is both certain and correct, one can come to a certain conscience judgment and be in error. This does not necessarily mean one has a badly formed conscience or was careless in exercising prudential conscience judgment. And neither does it relieve a person from the obligation of primacy of conscience and all that entails. Primacy of conscience does not mean "do whatever you want and justify it in the name of conscience"! Primacy of conscience means that what must always come first and cannot be questioned by those outside us are the judgments we come to as we sincerely, carefully, faithfully, and intelligently attend to the voice of God in our heart of hearts. 

Given all of this, I will say I have seen no evidence that Nancy Pelosi is not continuing to inform and form her own conscience in a way that allows her to make good faith conscience judgments for which she should be disciplined in such a highly public and political situation. Neither do I see evidence that her conscience needs to be better formed any more than is necessary for any intelligent person with a developed capacity to reason morally in a complex and changing situation. My sense is Pelosi opposes abortion and she opposes foisting that Catholic position on others. She has discerned and preferenced the values (life, freedom of choice or from coercion, etc) and disvalues (the impacts of carrying the fruit of incest or rape, forcing a choice, the death of the child, etc) and decided as she has after significant consultation, reflection, and prayer. Given the sincerity of her faith and the depth of what Archbishop Cordileone called her maternal sensibilities, I have to believe she holds her positions in the matter "in good faith". She is required, therefore, to act according to those certain prudential conscience judgments. To do otherwise is, without any doubt whatsoever, to sin against God, and to do so directly and (likely) gravely.

Interview With Archbishop Cordileone on Denying Rep. Pelosi Access to Eucharist

The following interview with Archbishop Cordileone is excellent and no matter where one stands on the action he has taken with Nancy Pelosi, it addresses (and raises!) some important questions. (The interviewer does a really good job with a wide scope of significant questions while not antagonizing Abp Cordileone or demonstrating particularly her own bias.) 

One thing that strikes me as inconsistent (or insufficiently articulated) is Abp Cordileone's focus on the complexity of his own and other bishops' prudential conscience judgments in this regard while apparently not clearly recognizing that Rep. Pelosi may well be acting in good faith on the very same complex prudential conscience questions and judgments. The other point which requires greater clarity is an apparent implication of guilt or culpability on Pelosi's part when in fact, Abp Cordileone cannot honestly speak to this issue without Nancy Pelosi admitting to him that she acted in bad faith. More specifically, Cordileone actually needs to deny her culpability is a known issue (or point out his own inability to say at all because what he knows is, for instance, confidential or covered by the seal of confession). Again, one may act in good faith and also err in their conscience judgment; in either case there is no sin and one is not culpable, nor, therefore, does one need to repent.) Unfortunately,  ABp Cordileone specifically says Pelosi needs to repent, even as he affirms her sincerity of belief.

In responding to the question, "but what about Nancy Pelosi's conscience?" ABp Cordileone distinguishes the way some treat abortion from other objectively evil acts and argues that we would never allow slavery to be made legal again, for instance, something that is also objectively evil even if one determined it could be done in good conscience. But this fails to speak to the question of the primacy of Nancy Pelosi's conscience judgment, which he was purporting to answer. He wanted to make the point that everyone recognizes the objective evil of slavery and so, we would never 1) make it legal, or 2) argue that one could hold slaves in good conscience. But in point of fact, there are several forms of contemporary slavery people justify today, despite their illegality and their immorality. Some of these persons may actually be acting "in good conscience" --- though their conscience judgments would be seriously errant.

In such a case one might mistakenly approve an objective evil (like slavery) because one sincerely thought one heard God's voice in the matter, and that person will certainly need to bear the consequences of such a conscience judgment including any civil, political, and ecclesiastical penalties and/or acts of censure that apply, but they cannot be said to be sinning in holding this viewpoint or acting accordingly. One opines and acts wrongly (in fact, one commits an objective evil) in these circumstances and will bear the consequences, but subjectively, one is not required to repent of personal sin in such a case because subjectively one acted in good faith according to what they believed God called them to believe and do. (I have written about this distinction before in citing Benedict XVI, so please check labels to the right.)

Especially important in considering what Abp Cordileone has done in taking this action is understanding the distinction between being blocked from Communion and excommunication which Abp Cordileone is clear about: Pelosi's access to the Sacrament is blocked but she is not excommunicated, and so, she is still Catholic with all of the rights and obligations of any Catholic excepting the right to receive the Eucharist. (This question came up in an online group to which I belong, so I am concerned that and expecting the media et al, to mistakenly claim Pelosi has been excommunicated.)