As a young man, I was often asked to attend to myself while my parents were away. Sometimes it would be for a day, sometimes only for a few hours. My mother, God bless her, had a habit of keeping ribeye steaks in our downstairs freezer. While my sister and I didn’t grow up with video games, or the latest toy, or trips to Disney every year, my parents made a point of feeding us well. But, there was a constraint on this wonderful food. One couldn’t eat steak whenever one wished. It was to be saved for dinner.
Yet, there were times in the midmorning, when I knew I would be alone until the evening. I would take a steak out, thaw it and rub it down with pepper and wine. Soon enough, I was sitting down to a lunchtime episode of M*A*S*H, accompanied by fourteen ounces of juicy, tender beef.
It wasn’t mine to take, and no matter how much I told myself it was ok. (“I could have eaten it for dinner for all they know.”) The prodding of my conscience was enough to make me walk the dozen or so blocks to confession. This childhood memory of taking and destroying flesh that wasn’t mine to take came rushing back this week, because the New England Journal of Medicine published an article arguing that abortion (a much more extreme version of taking and destroying flesh) could be carried out with good conscience. LifeSiteNews picked up the story and rewrote it as a piece of advice to pro-life advocates.
Dr. Lisa Harris’s intentions for writing the article in the New England Journal of Medicine at first appear to be mostly legal in nature:
The persistent failure to recognize abortion provision as “conscientious” has resulted in laws that do not protect caregivers who are compelled by conscience to provide abortion services, contributes to the ongoing stigmatization of abortion providers, and leaves theoretical and practical blind spots in bioethics with respect to positive claims of conscience
She paints an interesting landscape, where laws about what is “conscientious” quickly fade into the background and an account of conscience itself comes forward. It is assumed that conscience, what ever it is, will manifest itself in public displays of resistance to prevailing moral norms. “Though abortion providers now work within the law, they still have much to lose, facing stigma, marginalization within medicine, harassment, and threat of physical harm.” It is suggested that as long as someone is facing a stigma or receiving threats, then it must follow that they are acting out of adherence to conscience.
What then is conscience? Dr. Harris’s definition: “Whether or not abortion provision is “conscientious” depends on what conscience is. Most ideas of conscience involve a special subset of an agent’s ethical or religious beliefs — one’s “core” moral beliefs.”
From here on out, this definition of conscience will be referred to as the ‘modern’ definition. It is, I will argue, a perversion of true conscience not an alternative definition. The modern “conscience” is to true conscience as a slice of pizza is to a chair. You can sit on the pizza, but you won’t have much support for your back.
Dr. Leroy Huizenga, just down the road from me in Bismarck, provides an apt summary of this modern view: “Moderns believe every one’s conscience belongs to one’s self, that conscience is a matter of subjectivity, that an individual is subject only to his conscience and his conscience to him. Thus, “conscience” becomes a warrant for one’s own wishes and desires, and any external authority is perceived as a threat.”
How then does the modern view of conscience help pro-life advocates win hearts and minds? Stephanie Gray at LifeSiteNews makes her case thus: If we frame the debate based on conscience, then we lose any ground to win over those who disagree with us. “And so,” she writes, “in what should be a battle of right versus wrong, good versus evil, we’re now debating “my conscience versus yours,” which sounds very relativistic. Over emphasizing conscience is simply bad strategy and not done for other “medical” evils.”
There are two claims here. First she claims that conscience is somehow divorced from a discussion of “right versus wrong, good versus evil”. Second, she claims that bringing up conscience is merely a matter of “strategy” and a bad one at that. These claims will be properly sorted out in due course, but first we must attend to Gray’s account of true conscience, and also her breezy dismissal of it:
Gaudium et Spes says, “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment.” Perhaps some would argue that when conscience is defined by this standard, based on objective truths about good and evil, that “following one’s conscience” is properly understood and thus can’t be twisted to support injustices like abortion. And yet, many people may associate conscience with perhaps a religious conviction or feeling that applies to the individual, not the society, and consequently dismiss a person’s view as subjective without application to society at-large. Furthermore, if, at its core, the substance of an informed conscience is love, doing what is good, and avoiding evil, then why not talk clearly about those matters themselves?
Conscience, true conscience, is not something open to multiple definitions or standards. Gray’s qualifier on conscience “defined by this standard” is a meaningless one. Conscience is part of the embodied spirit that is a human being. Because we have all been created by God, we all have the ability to hear his voice in our hearts. That is why Blessed John Henry Newman, in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk wrote, “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, I shall drink–to the Pope, if you please,–still to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards.” How can a Catholic priest say that conscience trumps the Pope? What gives conscience the right to do so? Newman is aware of this question and answers it thus:
Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it if they had. It is the right of self-will.
What Newman understands, and what Stephanie Gray and Dr. Harris don’t, is that conscience can only have rights if it is rooted deeply in truth, and not merely “a special subset of an agent’s ethical or religious beliefs”. Dr. Harris begins her piece pleading for abortion workers to be considered legitimate. The laws of conscience, she argues, “contributes to the ongoing stigmatization of abortion providers”. Yet, if conscience is merely the ethical or religious positions I have chosen to adopt, then there is no ground for any one else to accept the commands of my conscience as valid.
Another man who understood conscience and its role to play in the world was Martin Luther. “I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted,” he writes, “and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.” The proper functioning of a conscience is to be captive to the word of God, just as the proper functioning of a human being is to be seek, know and love God. The truth about our human nature renders alternate versions of “conscience” meaningless.
“A man of conscience” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, “is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” What is problematic in the LifeSiteNews article is that conscience is implied to be separable from truth, or the Word of God. “Furthermore,” writes Gray, “if, at its core, the substance of an informed conscience is love, doing what is good, and avoiding evil, then why not talk clearly about those matters themselves?” She misses that in order to talk about those matters themselves, conscience needs must be part of the conversation. Without a conscience captive to truth, all the talk about “doing what is good, and avoiding evil” is talk wasted. Why would it matter what is good and what if evil if conscience has no intrinsic link to either?
Gray worries that debates will devolve into “my conscience versus yours” and thus lose any grounds for winning over another person. But on the true understanding of conscience, elaborated by the Saints and Popes, “my conscience versus yours” is a simple contradiction. Conscience, formed properly in relationship to its nature, won’t vary from person to person as Gray suggests. Rather, the truth found in conscience will only vary in the situations experienced by the individual person, not in its content which comes from the mouth of God. It’s true we face an uphill battle. It won’t be easy to argue for true conscience alongside rights to life and religious freedom. But we are already aware of the importance of words, and certain words must be defended with fierce conviction.
Conscience, like marriage, is a word under siege. Much more than simple semantics is at stake in this question. Mankind’s ability to hear the voice of God in their souls, whether well attuned or near-deaf, must be maintained as such. To cut God out of conscience is give up the war while still selling bonds. LifeSiteNews has one thing going for them, they are passionate. However, the title of Robert Georges’s most recent book (from which I pulled the Newman quote above) is intended to give pause. Conscience and Its Enemies, implies that certain persons, either intentionally or not, are undermining this vital part of the moral landscape. Those enemies are easy enough to confront when they are at other institutions, taking other classes, or persons obnoxious in their dislike of conservatism and faith. But to look to the right and see a fellow companion in the battle for life give up conscience, it is almost as discouraging as Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert George giving the fight on marriage. Let us pray the latter never happens.
Comment by Danie Malan on August 23, 2014 at 4:23 am
John has reminded us that conscience is guided by the truth. There is only one truth: Jesus Christ. He loves children, even unborn children and would use all His power to convince us to protect their lives. We should rather talk about responsiblity to help us to live courageously and lovingly, also by supporting people who wresle with poverty or other issues. In every situation we must pray for God’s guidance.