Theology 131Marriage, Human Sexuality and Family Life from a Catholic Perspective

CLAIM: Because man is drawn towards doing what is good, it is in doing what is good that man FULLY REALIZES what he was meant/designed to be. CONNATURALITY BETWEEN MAN and VALUE VALUE=the good -example: diesel engine and diesel fuel; original DVD and branded DVD player -NOT ONLY talking about them being bagay (this is a very superficial way of looking at things) - BUT we are talking about how they can function, how they can fulfill what they have been meant to be, how they have been designed to be; in other words, how they can become MOST FULLY THEMSELVES. -most machines come with users manuals; on the other hand, humans werent accompanied with such manuals. -knowing this, how do we determine the design of man, what makes him fully himself? -THE ANSWER: by reflecting at the EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIENCE. (Seeing how man reacts to certain things/occurrences) What is this EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIENCE? -experience of being drawn towards good and repelled by evil -experience of fulfillment, satisfaction, and inner joy when we do good -experience of inner conflict and turmoil when we violate the good that we know What does this [the EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIENCE] tell us about the human person? -that man becomes most fully himself in doing good -that man was designed to be fulfilled and satisfied in doing good.

Lecture Notes 0: CONSCIENCE Chapter 1: Anthropology Towards a Christian

(Source Text: OConnell, Timothy. An Understanding of Conscience, from Principles of a Catholic Morality, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990).] 0. Introduction. 0.1 Christian Anthropology in General - a believers understanding/vision of man - NOT ONLY concerning what man is *descriptive/normal anthropology+ - BUT ALSO and especially what man SHOULD BE [what man should DEVELOP INTO] [prescriptive/normative] 0.2 [CLAIM]: the experience of conscience as a good starting point [in Christian Anthropology]; reveals something about default design of man. [[Two approaches in approaching this: -creating oneself (tabula rasa/Lego blocks analogy) -existence of a plan; we are meant to become something; intrinsic to the human person. (THIS IS OUR CLAIM.)]] 0.2.1 Conscience as a HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC (conscience/1) -an almost instinctive dynamism/force/ gravitation towards the good -good understood as physical/moral/ psychological/aesthetic -this attraction towards the good is prereflexive and intensive -thereby revealing the default design of man.

-the doing of evil is ultimately selfdestructive -that the design of the human person is somewhat like the phototrophic quality of plants (where plants are drawn towards bright light/the sun to survive). -there is some kind of moral phototropism where man is attracted towards good because it is in doing of the good that man fully becomes himself. -this experience leads to the observation that there exists CONNATURALITY between man and value. -we also experience freedom on a basic level; there exists a capability for selfdirection, therefore leading to us becoming ultimately responsible and accountable for our actions. 0.2.2 Conscience (conscience/2) as a PROCESS

-though it must be affirmed that not every issue is a conscience issue. -these observations lead us to observe that our hold of the truth is FRAGILE, TENTATIVE, and NOT QUITE ABSOLUTE. *this has two possible meanings: I thought it was the right thing to do or Everybody thought this was the right thing to do. *we may need to amend our judgments *there exist possibilities for error *the need for the humble acceptance of the human condition which implies: **need to examine and/or reexamine our norms **responsibility that is constant and societal **the concept of freedom of expression and social gadflies (someone who disturbs society with strange/bizarre ideas) should be also seen in this context. [[These exist not just as an excuse to talk/blabber about but also our tool for getting to know the truth.]] Bad ideas die of their own accord; good ideas wont die even if you kill them. -we talk of SINCERE and CORRECT conscience (in the context of educating our conscience) *SINCERITY refers to the subjective quality of the individual who searches for the truth. *CORRECTNESS refers to the objective conformity [almost the end result of sincerity] to the objective good. *A SINCERE CONSCIENCE ALWAYS SEEKS TO BE CORRECT. [[not always correct but always tries to be correct.]] 0.2.3 Conscience as EVENT/JUDGMENT (conscience/3) -concerns the good to be done or the evil to be avoided in concrete situations -is

-a process of reflection, prayer, research, consultation, listening to others. -a process of FORMING and INFORMING -the process is determined by the human characteristic (conscience/1) -Oftentimes the good to be done or the evil to be avoided is not entirely clear because of: *COMPETING VALUES- the principle is clear but what is the good/what is the lesser evil?) (examples: moral dilemmas, e.g. runaway train, ectopic pregnancy) *AMBIGUOUS CULTURE- common values within society (examples: norms/mores, e.g. respect for elders, treatment of women, slavery, etc.) *INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE- Science and Technology Marches On (example: mad as a hatter) *CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES- change on what is acceptable from time to time (example: usury)

*SUPREMELY BINDING *MORALLY INFALLIBLE *AUTONOMY OF CONSCIENCE therefore HUMAN DIGNITY

and

[a] Regarding the EVENT itself -when we talk about following conscience/ conscience is clean/ my conscience is the voice of God, it is conscience/3 that we are referring to. -it is the concrete judgment of a specific person, thus it is SUPREMELY BINDING. *Therefore, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. This can mean that either (a) people sufficiently well-informed/wellmeaning can arrive at different dfecisions (Examples: Henry VII/Thomas More/Yizthak Rabin/Assasin of Yizthak Rabin) (b) the same person may eventually change his mind *Conscience does not legislate norms but applies norms to a concrete situation (i.e. THE NORM is to do good and avoid evil, but it is conscience that applies these to general situations) -judgment of conscience is MORALLY INFALLIBLE/ free from error *moral infallibility does not obviate objective/factual error. *what it means is that the person acting according to the best lights he has (i.e. his conscience) cannot be accused of acting in bad faith, or immorality, or committing a sin because a persons most serious obligation is to do the good that he knows. [b] What does this say about the human person? [Gaudium et Spes 16] Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey His dignity lies in observing

this law and by it he will be judged Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in search for truth Hence the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. We had referred to the moral infallibility of conscience/3. This means that the moral quality of our judgments and the actions that follow therefrom (whether they are moral/ immoral, sinful/ virtuous) is determined by its conformity with the judgment of conscience, the good as we know it (the conscience in accord/ wellinformed). *This statement implies the existence of a difference between the good as we know it and the good as it is objectively. It is possible that the good we know to be good may not be the good as it is. -A persons supremely eminent moral responsibility is to follow A WELLFORMED/ SINCERE and a WELLINFORMED/ CORRECT CONSCIENCE. -James Bretzke explains this in terms of the AUTONOMY of CONSCIENCE: *The person DISCERNS the law [he does not invent it+ *then he APPLIES the law to himself. In other words, the person in his MOST SACRED moment, MAKES THE DECISION HIMSELF, and will therefore be ultimately accountable and responsible, thus AUTONOMY because he cannot pass on the responsibility to anyone else. In other words, the buck stops with him.

Autonomy of Conscience is NOT (I will not consult anyone/ any source of knowledge). Autonomy is I must have a conscience that is well-formed and well-informed. a) Conscience/2 must be well-informedPRESUPPOSITION b) Conscience/3: I must make the decision. c) I will be RESPONSIBLE for the decision. Autonomy, therefore, AFFIRMS/ ASSERTS the dignity of the human person. -But what about the possibility of factual, objective error? Maybe the question can be rephrased: What is the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY of the person: to do the OBJECTIVE GOOD, or to do the GOOD AS HE KNOWS IT in conscience? -Regarding the first alternative [that man must do objective good rather than what he is sincerely convinced of], the following comments must be made: (i) This would mean interposing an agent outside of the person who will make the judgment concerning the good to be done/ evil to be avoided. (ii) Two questions: Who would this authoritative agent be? Who would determine/ decide who this person will be? (iii) This presupposes that such an agent external to the person will, as a matter of fact, dispense the correct answer. (iv) But even in the unlikely event that as a matter of fact such an external agent will dispense the objective good, what would have that created? We would have

creates an agent superior to the person who will make those decisions and judgments on his behalf. (v) Having created a false god or gods to whom we have subjected the person, we would also have emasculated the person of his dignity as one responsible for his acts; we would have reduced him into a robot programmed to obey an external authority or a heteronomous norm. THEREFORE, the supremacy of conscience/3, that the preeminent obligation of the human person to follow a well-formed conscience, also underscores the dignity of the person, that the person must make judgment himself, that he should do the good that he knows in conscience, and is ultimately responsible for the decision of eventually for the person that he will eventually become.