Readings at weekday masses in these weeks are taken from the First Letter of St Paul to the Corinthians, where the apostle has to deal with a whole checklist of problems, from Christians taking each other to court, to the issue of whether one can eat food offered to idols.
One gets the impression that the believers of that Greek city, labelled “Saints” by Paul, were in fact, far from our usual image of sanctity. In fact, they were giving that poor man a real headache as he ticks them off for their unspiritual attitudes and practices.
This letter is interesting for many reasons, but in this reflection, I would like to highlight the references to conscience mentioned at the beginning, especially in the fourth chapter, verses 1 thru 5.
The way in which Paul speaks of this faculty of moral judgement reflects, I think, his training as a pharisee. These zealous Jews were dedicated to studying and implementing God’s law in minute detail as the way to holiness. So, although Paul has abandoned many of the detailed rules and customs of his forebears, he is still fond of legal imagery, for example that of the courts of law, ruled over by a judge.
At the beginning of 4:1-2, Paul sees himself as a servant of Christ entrusted with the mysteries of God and raises the question as to whether he has been a trustworthy one or not. Initially he thinks of what others may judge, only to reject this idea: “Not that it makes the slightest difference to me whether you or indeed any human tribunal find me worthy or not” (v.3). (Note the legal reference to “tribunal.”)
But there is also an internal judge, which he calls his “conscience,” something of greater importance than any external law court or of public opinion. Even here, though, our man is bold enough to say that I will not even pass judgment on myself. “True, my conscience does not reproach me at all, but that does not prove that I am acquitted: the Lord alone is my judge. There must be no passing of premature judgement” (v 4-5).
What Paul is speaking about here is what theologians have called “consequent conscience,” the moral judgement we make on what we have done after the event. This is distinguished from “antecedent conscience” when a person is trying to decide on what is the right thing to do, weighing up different values, checking out motives, and so on.
Paul’s conscience is certainly not his hangman in this case. It is favourably disposed, almost complimentary, regarding how he has performed as Christ’s servant.
But this is precisely what the apostle is putting in question. Can he really trust himself to make such a judgement? After all, we frequently claim that a person is not a judge in their own case! Hence, the reluctance to claim that he is acquitted by his personal inner tribunal!
A moment’s reflection on different experiences of conscience underlines this point that one’s conscience can easily be in error.
Take, for example, the case of people with a scrupulous conscience. These unfortunate souls typically have an exaggerated sense of guilt and shame. In confession, they are never happy with their efforts to list their sins in often gruesome detail and never feel the peace of forgiveness, often returning again and again to the Sacrament!
At the other extreme are the ones who have what used to be called a “lax” conscience or an “elastic” one. They “might” have committed a sin, but really doubt it. “I am no Saint, Father, but…! Ah sure, I am only human!”
With both kinds, the essential issue is a form of self-deception, either exaggerating or underestimating one’s moral character. Such deception can be either pertaining to an individual or a group, ultimately being a question of openness to the wisdom of the Spirit.
Whole societies can be guilty of a version of moral blindness, while individuals can cut themselves off from an upright social conscience, seeing themselves as noble exceptions to the normal judgement.
Paul will go on in 6:1 to critique church members who dare to take up a complaint against another in the lawcourts of the unjust instead of before the saints. Why are the pagan courts unjust?
Presumably because their consciences are in error, not being properly formed by Christian values, run by folk who do not have the “Mind of Christ,” people who are unspiritual and therefore cannot recognise true value when they see it.
Acting in this way, the so-called saints are displaying their immaturity; they are mere infants who need to grow up to be fed on the right kind of moral wisdom (3:2)
In the case of individuals, Paul is expressing his opinion that exercising the judgement of conscience is often like a judge in a lower court making bad decisions in need of correction by a higher court. This may be a useful analogy as legal systems in certain jurisdictions are made up of a set of lower courts each of which must know the limits of their authority in making judgments.
Appeals can be made against their judgments to a higher court which may overrule their decisions. In this way, an individual acting according to personal conscience would do well to appeal to a higher court for advice and for possible confirmation or dissent of their position.
Applied to the religious sphere, this means individuals forming their consciences in line with scripture and tradition as interpreted by the Church and ultimately the supreme court of God’s will revealed in sincere prayer.
We owe a great deal to St Paul in this letter for the recognition of the value and limits of human conscience. In particular, we need to learn the dangers of slogans telling us always to obey conscience without adding the qualification “informed” – for conscience is so easily in error, leading us astray. The apostle lays down the basic truth that the spiritual person is able to judge the value of everything (2:15).
With the Spirit of God informing us, conscience will not be our hangman but our bosom friend.
Kieran ofm