My dear parishioners,

            Peace!  In other bulletins (4 December, 2016-11 June, 2017) we have considered the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on “conscience.”  We then turned to Saint John Paul II’s encyclical letter Veritatis splendor (6 August, 1993) which addresses fundamental moral issues, including “conscience” more than one hundred times.  These reflections were begun earlier (6 April, 2018-30 May, 2018).  Here we no consider a passage from Veritatis splendor, 54.2.

            Saint John Paul II (+2005) in VS, 54, marveled that there were those who would exalt freedom, falsely understood, “almost to the point of idolatry” resulting in a “’creative’ understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.”  Idolatry is not always as obvious as the account of the Golden Calf (cf. Exodus 32:1-35) when ancient Israel became depraved in the desert.  All sin is idolatry, in that we prefer our will to God’s, displacing the Lord for ourselves, our whims and desires (cf. Colossians 3:5).  The English term “idolatry” is a compound of the Greek eidolon (image) and latreia (worship).  Idolatry is fobiden in Exodus 20:3; Leviticus 26:1-2.

            The list of those who have had such a “creative understanding of moral conscience”, sadly, is long.  Whenever we callously discard the ancient tradition of the Church and her perennial teaching (Magisterium) we join their number.  The Holy Father does not provide a list of the who’s who of dissenters, but a few come to mind:  the Germans Josef Fuchs (+2005 consequentialist / proportionalist) and Karl Rahner (+1984 fundamental option); the Swiss Hans Kung (+2021); and the Americans Charles Curran (b. 1934 proportionalist), Richard McCormick (+2000 proportionalist) all seem(ed) content to “go with the flow” of relativistic, “I’m OK, you’re OK” sort of morality which is diametrically opposed to the holiness the Lord Jesus calls us to in his Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:1-48).  Proportionalists are content to balance out moral goodness and badness.  Normally X is bad, but because you have done so much good… go ahead…  Similarly, consequentialists do not object to moral evils “so long as no one gets hurt” discounting all the while the metaphysical hurt actualized by moral evil.  Those who would posit the fundamental option insist that since overall you do good and desire good, that is your main choice (fundamental option) so any little evil here or there is not off putting.

            Lest a list of dissenters overwhelm, there are those who have had an authentically creative output in the realm of moral theology, where matters of conscience are examined and they are happily given here:  Romanus Cessario (b.1944), John Finnis (b. 1940), Robert George (b. 1955), Germain Grisez (+2018), Russell Hittinger (b. 1949), William May (+2014).  These, among others, embrace both the natural law and virtue ethics which feature prominently in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (+1274) and Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (+1787).  These latter folks know Isaiah 1:16:  “Cease doing evil.”
            God bless you!

            Father John Arthur Orr