Thomas’s most haunting teaching on the matter of conscience is that, while a conscience always binds, it does not always excuse. So much for the exculpating trump of the appeal to conscience. After all, one’s conscience may be badly formed and one may be culpable for that. This chapter consists of the seventeenth of the twenty-nine questions gathered into the Disputed Question on Truth. It is preceded by a discussion of synderesis, which is to the precepts of natural law as intellect is to the first self-evident principles of reasoning. Each, that is, is the subjective hold on, or habit of, such principles. Conscience is introduced as the rational application to present contingent circumstances of the first principles of practical reason, viz. natural law. The disputed question below is the most extensive discussion of conscience in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. And it comes relatively early in his teaching life. This has led some to suggest that Thomas more or less discarded the notion in favour of an alternative and more Aristotelian analysis of moral reasoning – without, of course, any overt rejection of it. This is overstated but not without some basis. Later discussions are meagre. Conscience is the subject of Article 13 of Question 79 of Part 1 of the Summa theologiae – Article 12 is devoted to synderesis – and in the moral part of the Summa, conscience does not seem to occupy pride of place. It can of course be argued that in the supple, less complex and intentionally complete account of the Summa, we are better instructed on the relative importance of conscience in the full picture of human action. In any case, the text that follows is a unique and magnificent discussion of conscience. In reading Article 5, the reader might think of Newman’s remark to the Duke of Norfolk that, if it came to it, he would toast first his conscience, then the Pope.
QUESTION SEVENTEEN
ON CONSCIENCE
Article 1: The question is about conscience. And we ask first whether it is a power or habit or act.
1. It seems that it is a power, for Jerome says in his Gloss on Ezekiel 1.9, after he has made mention of synderesis, ‘We see that sometimes this conscience is set aside,’ from which it seems that conscience is the same as synderesis. But synderesis is in some way a power. Therefore conscience is too.
2. Moreover, only a power of the soul is a subject of vice; but conscience is subject to the stain of sin, as is clear from Titus 1.15, ‘For both their mind and their conscience are defiled.’ Therefore conscience is a power.
3. It will be said that the stain is not in conscience as in a subject. On the contrary, nothing numerically the same can be both stained and clean if it is not the subject of stain; but whatever changes from dirty to clean while remaining numerically the same thing is sometimes dirty and sometimes clean. Therefore, whatever changes from dirty to clean, or the reverse, is the subject of dirtiness and cleanliness. But conscience changes from filth to cleanliness. Hebrews 9.14: ‘How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered himself unblemished unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?’ Therefore conscience is a power.
4. Moreover, conscience is said to be a dictate of reason, which dictate is nothing other than a judgement of reason; but reason’s judgement pertains to free will [arbitrium], from which it is named; therefore free will and conscience appear to be the same; but free will is a power and so too must conscience be.
5. Moreover, Basil says that conscience is the natural seat of judgement [iudicatorium ]; but synderesis is the natural seat of judgement, so conscience is the same as synderesis and since synderesis is in a way a power, so too is conscience.
6. Moreover, sin is only in will or reason; but sin is in conscience; therefore conscience is reason or will and, since reason and will are potencies, so too must conscience be.
7. Moreover, neither habit nor act is said to know, but conscience is said to know. Ecclesiastes 7.22: ‘For thy conscience knoweth that thou hast often spoken evil of others.’ Therefore, conscience is neither a habit nor act and must be a power.
8. Moreover, Origen says that conscience is the ‘rebuker of the spirit and a teacher resident in the soul whereby it is separated from evil things and adheres to the good’. But spirit names either a power of the soul or its very essence; therefore conscience names some power of the soul.
9. Moreover, conscience is either an act, a habit or a power. But it is not an act because an act does not always remain and is not in one sleeping who none the less is said to have a conscience. Nor is it a habit. Therefore, it is a power.
But that it is not a habit is shown thus:
1. No habit of reason is concerned with particulars; but conscience bears on particular acts; therefore, conscience is not a habit of reason or of any other power since conscience pertains to reason.
2. Moreover, in reason there are only speculative or practical habits; but conscience is not a speculative habit since it is ordered to action; nor is it an operative since it is neither art nor prudence – and these are the only ones the Philosopher in Ethics 6 places in the operative part. Therefore conscience is not a habit. That conscience is not art is obvious. That it isn’t prudence is proved thus: prudence is right reason concerning things to be done, as is said in Ethics 6; but it can be concerned with singular possible deeds since these are infinite and reason cannot be of them. Again it would follow that prudence would be augmented, absolutely speaking, according to the consideration of more singular acts, which does not seem true. Conscience however does look to singular deeds. Therefore, conscience is not prudence.
3. But one says that conscience is a certain habit whereby the universal judgement of reason is applied to the particular deed. Against this: what can be brought about by one habit does not require two. But one having the universal habit can apply it to the singular through the mediation of the sensitive power alone, just as from the habit whereby one knows that every mule is sterile he may know that this mule is sterile when he perceives with the senses that it is a mule. Therefore no other habit is needed for the application of the universal judgement to the particular act.
4. Moreover, a habit is either natural or infused or acquired, but conscience is not a natural habit because such a habit is the same in everyone but all do not have the same conscience. Nor is it an infused habit which is always correct for conscience is sometimes incorrect. Nor is it an acquired habit because then children would not have a conscience since a man acquires a habit as the result of many acts. Therefore conscience is not a habit, with the same result as before.
5. Moreover, according to the Philosopher a habit is acquired from many acts; but one has a conscience from one act; therefore conscience is not a habit.
6. Moreover, conscience is a punishment for the damned, as is said in the Gloss on 2 Corinthians 1.12; but a habit is rather a perfection than a penalty for the one having it; therefore conscience is not a habit.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It seems that conscience is a habit, for [1] conscience according to Damascene is ‘the law of our intellect’; but the law of intellect is the habit of the universal principles of the law. Therefore conscience is a habit.
[2] Moreover, on ‘When the Gentiles who have no law…’ in Romans 2.14 the Gloss says, ‘Although they had no written law they had, however, the natural law which everyone understands and by means of which everyone is conscious of what is good and evil’; from which is seen that natural law is that whereby each is conscious of himself and each is conscious of himself through conscience. Conscience, then, is natural law – the same conclusion as before.
[3] Moreover, science names the habit of the conclusion; but conscience is a kind of science; therefore it is a habit.
[4] Moreover, from the multiplication of acts a habit arises, but one acts frequently through conscience. Therefore from such acts a certain habit which can be called conscience is generated.
[5] Moreover, on 1 Timothy 1.5, ‘Now the purpose of this charge is charity, from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned,’ the Gloss says ‘good conscience, that is hope’. But hope is a certain habit, so too, then, is conscience.
[6] Moreover, that which is put into us by God seems to be an infused habit; but according to Damascene in On Faith 4 as tinder [fomes] is put in us by the demon so conscience is put in us by God. Therefore conscience is an infused habit.
[7] Moreover, according to the Philosopher in Ethics 2 everything in the soul is either a power or habit or passion; but conscience is not a passion because we neither merit nor the opposite by passions – ‘we are neither praised nor blamed’, as the Philosopher says. Nor again is it a power because a power cannot be laid aside as conscience can be. Therefore conscience is a habit.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It seems that conscience is an act, for [1] conscience is said to accuse or excuse; but one is accused or excused only insofar as he actually considers something; therefore conscience is a kind of act.
[2] Moreover, knowing which consists in a putting-together is actual knowing; but conscience names a science with a putting-together, for it is said to be a knowing-with [con-scire]. Therefore conscience is actually knowledge.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that some say that conscience is understood in three ways: for sometimes conscience is taken to mean the very thing known, as faith is sometimes taken to mean the thing believed; sometimes for the power whereby we know; sometimes for the habit; and by some it is sometimes taken for the act. The reason for this distinction seems to be that conscience is some act, and an act involves an object, power, habit and the act itself, and sometimes a name is used equivocally of these four, as ‘understanding’ sometimes signifies what is understood, sometimes the intellective power itself, sometimes indeed a habit, and sometimes the act. In namings of this sort we should follow linguistic usage because ‘words are to be used as most people use them’, as is said in Topics 2. It seems to be a matter of usage that conscience is sometimes taken for the thing known, as when it is said, ‘I have my conscience,’ that is, what is in my consciousness. The term cannot properly be attributed to the power or habit but only to the act, a meaning which is in harmony with all the things said of conscience.
Notice that the same word is used of act and power or habit only when some act is proper to the power or habit, as seeing is the proper act of the power of sight and knowing of the habit of science, and thus sight sometimes signifies the power and sometimes the act, and so too with knowing. If, however, there should be an act which belongs to several or even to all habits and powers, it is not customary to name any power or habit by its name, as is clear with the word ‘use’ which signifies the act of any habit. The act of any habit or power is the use of that whose act it is; hence this word ‘use’ signifies act and never power or habit. And so it seems to be with ‘conscience’. The term conscience signifies the application of knowledge to something, hence to ‘know with’ [conscire ] means, as it were, to know at the same time. But any science can be applied to something, so conscience cannot name any special habit or power, but it names the act which is the application of some habit or of some knowledge to a particular act.
Knowledge can be applied to an act in two ways: in one way insofar as we consider whether the act is or was; or, in another way, insofar as we ask whether the act is right or not.
According to the first kind of application we are said to have consciousness [conscientiam ] of an act insofar as we know it to be an act that was done or not done, as is commonly meant when it is said that I have no conscience of this fact, that is, I do not or did not know whether the thing is or was done. It is in this sense that we should understand Genesis 43.22, ‘We cannot tell who put it in our bags,’ and Ecclesiastes 7.23, ‘For thy conscience knoweth that thou hast often spoken evil of others.’ In this way, conscience is said to testify to something, as in Romans 9.1, ‘My conscience beareth me witness.’
According to the other way in which knowledge is applied to an act such that it is known whether it is right, there is a twofold path. One according as through the habit of science we are directed that we should or should not do something; another insofar as the act once done is examined by the habit of science as to whether it was right or not. This twofold path in actions is distinguished according to a twofold path that is found in theoretical matters, namely the way of discovering and the way of judging. For the way in which through knowledge we look into what ought to be done, as it were taking counsel, is like the discovery which starting from principles investigates conclusions. And the way in which we examine what has been done and discuss whether it is right is like the way of judgement which resolves conclusions into principles. We use the term conscience for both kinds of application. When knowledge is applied to an act in directing it, conscience is said to goad or persuade or bind; when knowledge is applied to an act in the manner of an examination of what has already been done, conscience is said to accuse or worry when what was done is found to be out of harmony with the knowledge by which it is examined, or to defend or excuse when what has been done is found to have taken place in conformity with the science.
It should be said, however, that in the first kind of application, when knowledge is applied to an act in order to know whether it was done, the application is a particular act of sensitive knowledge, of memory in which what was done is recorded, of the sense through which we perceive this particular act we are now doing. But in the second and third applications whereby we deliberate what ought to be done or examine what has been done, it is a habit of practical reason that is applied, namely the habit of synderesis and the habit of wisdom through which higher reason is perfected and the habit of science through which lower reason is perfected, whether all together or one alone should be applied. By these habits we examine what we have done and deliberate about what is to be done. Examination bears not only on what has been done but also on what is to be done, whereas deliberation concerns only things to be done.
Ad 1. It should be replied that when Jerome says, ‘We see this conscience to be set aside,’ he is not referring to synderesis itself, which he called the spark of conscience, but conscience as we spoke of it above. Or it could be said that the whole force of examining and deliberating with conscience depends on the judgement of synderesis, just as the whole truth of speculative reason depends on first principles, and therefore he calls conscience synderesis only insofar as it works from its force, especially when he wanted to express a failure of synderesis: it does not fail with respect to the universal but in the application of it to singulars. So synderesis does not itself fail but only in a certain way when conscience does. Therefore in explaining the failure of synderesis, he links it to conscience.
Ad 2. It should be said that a stain is not said to be in conscience as in a subject but as the known is in knowledge; for someone is said to have a stained conscience when he is conscious of some stain in himself.
Ad 3. It should be said that a stained conscience is said to be cleansed when someone who was first conscious of some sin in himself later knows that the sin has been cleansed away, and he is then said to have a clean conscience. Therefore it is the same conscience that before was unclean and after is clean, not indeed that the conscience is the subject of cleanness or uncleanness, but because both are known by the examining conscience. Nor is it numerically the same act whereby someone first knows himself to be unclean and later to be clean, but both are known from the same principles, as considerations which proceed from the same principles are called the same.
Ad 4. It should be said that the judgements of conscience and of free will in some ways differ and in some ways are similar. They are similar in that both bear on the particular act – it belongs to the judgement of conscience as examining – and in this the judgements of both differ from that of synderesis. But the judgement of conscience differs from that of free will because the judgement of conscience consists of pure knowledge, but the judgement of free will lies in the application of knowledge to the affections, which indeed is the judgement of choice. That is why it sometimes happens that the judgement of free will is perverted and not that of conscience. As when someone examines something imminently to be done and judges as if still speculating through principles that this is evil, for example, to fornicate with this woman. But when he begins to apply it to action, many circumstances of that act occur, for example the pleasure of fornication, from desire of which reason is bound and its dictate is not carried out in choice. In this way one errs in choosing and not in conscience; rather he acts against conscience and is said to do this with a bad conscience only insofar as what is done is not in accord with the judgement of knowledge. Evidently, then, conscience should not be said to be the same as free will.
Ad 5. It should be said that conscience is called the natural judging power insofar as every examination or deliberation of conscience depends on the natural judging power [iudicatorium ], as was said above.
Ad 6. It should be said that sin is in reason and will as in a subject, in conscience in another way, as has been said.
Ad 7. It should be said that conscience is said to know something, not properly, but in that manner of speaking whereby that whereby we know is said to know.
Ad 8. It should be said that conscience is called spirit, that is the instinct of our spirit, insofar as reason is called spirit.
Ad 9. It should be said that conscience is neither a power nor a habit but an act, and, although the act of conscience is not permanent nor in one sleeping, this act remains in its root, and is in the habits applicable to the act.
We concede those arguments which prove that conscience is not a habit.
As to those which on the contrary object that it is a habit:
Ad 1. It should be said that conscience is called the law of our intellect because it is a judgement of reason deduced from natural law.
Ad 2. It should be said that one is said to be conscious of himself through natural law in the same manner of speaking that one is said to consider according to principles, but through conscience in that manner of speaking that one is said to consider by the very act of consideration.
Ad 3. It should be said that although science is a habit the application of science to something is not a habit but an act: and it is this that is meant by the word conscience.
Ad 4. It should be said that from acts no habit is generated of another kind than that from which the acts are elicited, but either some habit of the same kind, as from acts of infused charity an acquired habit of love is generated, or a pre-existing habit is strengthened, as in one who has the acquired habit of temperance that habit is strengthened by acts of temperance. Thus since the act of conscience proceeds from the habit of wisdom and science, no habit other than these is generated but they are perfected.
Ad 5. It should be said that when conscience is called hope it is a predication from its cause, insofar as a good conscience makes a man to be of good hope, as the Gloss explains.
Ad 6. It should be said that even those natural habits are in us by divine insertion [immissio ], and therefore since conscience is an act proceeding from that natural habit that is synderesis, conscience is said to be of divine insertion, in the way in which all knowledge of the truth that is in us is said to be from God, by whom the knowledge of first principles has been placed in our nature.
Ad 7. It should be said that distinction of acts by the Philosopher is included in habit from the fact that he has proved that the habit is generated from acts and is the principle of similar acts. Thus conscience is neither passion nor power but an act which is reduced to a habit.
We concede the arguments which prove conscience to be an act.
Article 2: Can conscience err?
It seems that it cannot.
1. The natural judging power [iudicatorium ] never errs, but conscience, according to Basil, is the natural judging power. Therefore it does not err.
2. Moreover, conscience adds something to science; that which it adds does not diminish the notion of knowledge; but science never errs because it is a habit thanks to which the true is always said, as is evident from Ethics 6. Therefore conscience cannot err.
3. Moreover, synderesis is the ‘spark of conscience’, as the Gloss on Ezekiel 1.9 says. Therefore conscience is compared to synderesis as fire to a spark, so what is true of synderesis is true of conscience. But synderesis does not err, and neither, then, does conscience.
4. Moreover, according to Damascene in On Faith 4, conscience is ‘the law of our intellect’; but the law of our intellect is more certain than intellect itself; but ‘intellect is always correct’, as is said in On the Soul 3. Therefore even more so conscience is ever correct.
5. Moreover, reason in the part that touches synderesis does not err; but reason conjoined with synderesis makes conscience. Therefore conscience never errs.
6. Moreover, judgement rests on the word of witnesses; but in divine judgement conscience is as witness, as is clear from Romans 2.15, ‘Their conscience bears witness to them…’ Since then divine judgement cannot fail, it seems that conscience can never err.
7. Moreover, in all things it should be that the rule according to which others are measured should have unfailing rectitude; but the rule of human acts is conscience. Therefore it is necessary that conscience be always correct.
8. Moreover, hope is founded on conscience, as the Gloss says on 1 Timothy 1.5, ‘from a pure heart and a good conscience…’ But hope is most certain, as is said in Hebrews 6.18: ‘We who have sought refuge in holding fast the hope before us. This hope we have, as a sure and firm anchor of the soul…’ Therefore conscience has unfailing rectitude.
ON THE CONTRARY:
[1] There is what is said in John 16.2: ‘Yes, the hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering worship to God.’ Therefore, conscience dictated to those who killed the apostles that they should kill them. But this was erroneous. Therefore conscience errs.
[2] Moreover, conscience means a kind of bringing together; but reason in bringing things together can be deceived. Therefore conscience can err.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been argued, conscience is nothing else than the application of science to some special act, in which application error can arise in two ways: in one way, because that which is applied contains an error in itself, in another way in this that it is not correctly applied. Just as in syllogizing fault comes about in two ways, either because one uses falsehoods, or because one does not reason correctly. That someone makes use of falsehoods can come about in one part but not in the other. It was said above that through conscience the knowledge of synderesis and of higher and lower reason is applied to the particular act under examination. Since the act is particular and the judgement of synderesis is universal, the judgement of synderesis can only be applied to the act if there is an assumption of some particular, which particular sometimes comes under higher reason and sometimes under lower reason. Thus conscience is perfected in a kind of particular syllogism. For example, if the judgement of synderesis states, ‘Nothing prohibited by the law of God is to be done,’ and from the knowledge of higher reason is taken, ‘Sleeping with this woman would be against the law of God,’ the application of conscience being made, the conclusion follows that ‘Sleeping with this woman must be refrained from.’
In the universal judgement of synderesis error cannot occur, as is evident from the foregoing; but in the judgement of higher reason there can be an error as when one thinks God’s law is against something, or for something, which it is not, like the heretics who believe an oath is prohibited by God, and in this way error can occur in conscience because of a falsehood that was in the higher part of reason. Similarly, error can come about in conscience from an error in the lower part of reason, as when someone errs in civil arguments about the just or unjust, the honourable or dishonourable. Conscience can also err when the application is not made in a correct manner, because just as in syllogizing in speculative matters it happens that the proper form of arguing is not maintained and from this falsehood shows up in the conclusion, so too can it happen in the syllogism required in things to be done, as has been said.
It should be known, however, that in some things conscience can never err, namely when the particular to which conscience is applied has a universal judgement about it in synderesis. For just as in speculative matters, no error occurs about particular conclusions that are assumed under universal principles in the same terms. No one could be deceived into thinking that this whole is greater than its part, nor could any conscience err in this that God ought not to be loved by me or that some evil ought to be done, because both in the syllogism about speculative things and about things to be done the major is self-evident as existing in a universal judgement, and the minor too in which the same thing is predicated of itself particularly, as when it is said: Every whole is greater than its part; this whole is a whole, therefore it is greater than its part.
Ad 1. It should be said that conscience is called the natural iudicatorium insofar as it is a certain conclusion deduced from the natural iudicatorium, in which error can occur, although not on account of an error of the natural iudicatorium, but on account of an error in the particular assumed, or on account of an improper mode of reasoning, as has been said.
Ad 2. It should be said that conscience adds to knowledge the application of knowledge to the particular act, and in this application there can be error even when there is no error in the knowledge. Or it should be said that when I say conscience I do not imply science taken only strictly, insofar as it is of truths alone, but science taken in a large sense for any knowledge, since whatever we know [novimus ] in common usage we are said to have science of [scire ].
Ad 3. It should be said that a spark is purer than fire and leaps above the whole fire, so synderesis is found to be that which is supreme in the judgement of conscience, so synderesis is metaphorically called the spark of conscience. But this does not entail that in all other respects synderesis is to conscience as spark is to fire. However, even in material fire something occurs in fire because of the addition of some alien matter which does not affect the spark by reason of its purity. So too an error can occur in conscience because of its mingling with particulars which are as alien matter to reason, which does not affect synderesis persisting in its purity.
Ad 4. It should be said that conscience is called the law of intellect because of that which it takes from synderesis, and error in it never occurs on this score but comes from elsewhere, as has been said.
Ad 5. It should be said that reason, thanks to being conjoined to synderesis, does not err. None the less, erring higher and lower reason can be applied to synderesis, as a false minor is added to a true major premiss.
Ad 6. It should be said that in judgement the words of witnesses rule when their testimony cannot be accused of falsity through certain manifest signs. In him in whom conscience errs, the testimony of conscience is proved false from the very dictate of synderesis, and thus the divine judgement is not ruled by the dictate of erring conscience but rather by the dictate of natural law.
Ad 7. It should be said that conscience is not the first rule of human acts, synderesis is; but conscience is a rule under a rule [regula regulata ], so it is no surprise that error can occur in it.
Ad 8. It should be said that the hope that is based on right conscience has certainty, and this is graced hope; of the hope which is based on an erroneous conscience it is said, ‘The hope of the impious will perish.’
Article 3: Third, it is asked whether conscience binds.
It seems that it does not.
1. Only a law binds with respect to things to be done; but man does not make a law for himself; therefore since conscience is an act of man, conscience does not bind.
2. Moreover, one is not bound by counsels; but conscience comes about by way of taking counsel, thus that conscience like counsel precedes choice; therefore conscience does not bind.
3. Moreover, one is only bound by a superior; but a man’s conscience is not superior to the man himself; therefore man is not bound by his own conscience.
4. Moreover, it pertains to the same to bind and to loose; but conscience is insufficient to absolve a man; therefore it is insufficient to bind him.
ON THE CONTRARY:
[1] On Ecclesiastes 7.23, ‘For thy conscience knoweth…’ the Gloss says, ‘by which judgement no one doing harm is absolved’; but the precept of the judge obliges. Therefore the dictate of conscience also obliges.
[2] Moreover, on Romans 14.23, ‘Whatever is not of faith…’ Origen takes the Apostle to say that I should say nothing, think nothing, do nothing save according to conscience. Therefore conscience binds.
RESPONSE:
It should be said without any doubt that conscience binds. In order to see the way in which it binds it should be noted that binding is transferred metaphorically from bodily to spiritual things. He who is bound is forced to stay in the place to which he is bound and his power to go elsewhere is removed; thus it is evident that binding has no place in things which are necessary in themselves – we don’t say that fire is bound to be borne upward although it is necessary for it to be borne upward – but binding applies only to those necessary things on which necessity is imposed by another.
There are two kinds of necessity which can be imposed by another: one of force, when someone necessarily has to do something because of the action of the enforcer, since otherwise it would not properly be called force but inducement; another which is conditioned, namely on the supposition of some end, as a certain necessity is imposed on one when if he does not do such-and-such he will not receive a reward. The first kind of necessity, that of force, is not found in movements of the will but only in bodily things, because the will is naturally immune to force. But the second kind of necessity can be imposed on the will, such that one must choose this in order to attain a good or avoid an evil – to lack an evil is counted with having a good in such matters, as is clear from the Philosopher in Ethics 5.1. And just as the necessity of force is imposed on bodily things through some action, so too conditioned necessity is imposed on the will through some action. The act whereby the will is moved is the command of the king or governor, hence the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 5.1 that the king is a principle of motion through his command.
Such a command is to binding in voluntary matters – the kind of binding to which the will can be subject – as a bodily act is to binding bodily things with the necessity of force. The action of the bodily agent induces necessity in something only through the contact of that action with the thing acted on. And neither can the command of a king or lord bind anyone unless the command reaches the one commanded by it –and this is accomplished through knowledge. Thus no one is bound by a precept except through knowledge of the precept, and he who is incapable of knowledge of the precept is not bound by it, nor can anyone ignorant of the precept be said to be bound to act according to the precept except insofar as he is held to know the precept. If he neither knows it nor is held to know of it he is in no way bound by the precept. For just as in bodily things the bodily agent acts only through contact, so in spiritual matters the precept binds only through knowledge. Therefore just as it is the same force whereby touch acts and the power of the agent acts, nor can the latter act save through the former, so too it is the same power with which the precept binds and knowledge binds, since knowledge binds only through the power of the precept which can bind only through knowledge. Since conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to an act, it is clear that conscience is said to bind in virtue of the divine precept.
Ad 1. It should be said that man does not fashion a law for himself, but through the act of his knowledge whereby he knows the law fashioned by another he is bound to fulfil the law.
Ad 2. It should be said that counsel can mean two things: sometimes science is nothing other than the act of reason inquiring about things to be done, and counsel in this sense is to choice as the syllogism or question is to the conclusion, as is clear from the Philosopher in Ethics 3.8. So taken, counsel is not opposed to precept. In this sense we take counsel about the very things that are in the precept, and that is why one can be bound by counsel in this sense. In another sense, counsel means persuasion or inducement to do something which does not have coercive force. In this sense precepts are opposed to counsel’s friendly exhortations. But conscience sometimes proceeds from counsel in this sense too, when knowledge of the counsel is applied to a particular act. But since conscience only binds due to the force of what it contains, the conscience that follows from counsel can bind only in the way counsel itself does, that is, one is not bound to fulfil it but is bound not to despise it.
Ad 3. It should be said that although a man is not superior to himself, that of which he has knowledge through the precept is higher, and in this way he is bound by his conscience.
Ad 4. It should be said that an erroneous conscience is insufficient to absolve when it sins from its own error, as when it errs about things it is held to know. If, however, it is an error about things one is not held to know, one is absolved by his conscience, as is evident in one who sins out of ignorance of fact, for example, lying with another’s wife whom he thinks to be his own.
Article 4: Can an erroneous conscience bind?
It seems that it does not because:
1. As Augustine says, sin is any speech or deed or desire contrary to the law of God. Therefore nothing binds with the penalty of sin save the law of God; but an erroneous conscience is not according to the law of God, therefore it does not bind on penalty of sin.
2. Moreover, on Romans 13.1, ‘Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God,’ the Gloss of Augustine says that one is not held to obey a lesser power against the command of a higher, as one is not held to obey the proconsul if he commands something contrary to the emperor. But conscience is inferior to God; therefore when conscience commands what is contrary to the precepts of God, the precept of such an erring conscience seems not to oblige.
3. Moreover, according to Ambrose sin is the transgression of the divine law and disobedience to heavenly mandates. Therefore, whoever deviates from obedience to divine law sins; but an erroneous conscience makes one deviate from obedience to the divine power as when one’s conscience tells him he must do what is prohibited by divine law. Therefore an erroneous conscience when followed leads to sin rather than binds under penalty of sin if it is not observed.
4. Moreover, in law if someone is conscious that a wife comes to him who falls into a prohibited degree, and that conscience is probable, then he ought to follow it against the precept of the Church, even if the penalty be excommunication. If, however, it is not a probable conscience it does not bind such that one must follow it, but one ought rather to obey the Church. But an erroneous conscience, particularly in the case of intrinsic evils, is in no way probable; therefore a conscience of this kind does not bind.
5. Moreover, God is more merciful than a temporal lord, but a temporal lord does not impute sin to a man for something done out of error; so much the less, then, would someone acting from an erroneous conscience be held sinful by God.
6. But one might say that an erroneous conscience binds in indifferent matters but not in those which are intrinsically evil. On the contrary, a conscience erring about intrinsically evil things would be said not to bind because the dictate of natural reason says the opposite; but so too natural reason dictates the opposite of an erroneous conscience erring in indifferent matters; so neither does it bind.
7. Moreover, an indifferent act can go either way, but what can go either way is not necessarily done or necessarily not done; therefore in indifferent matters one is not necessarily obligated by his conscience.
8. Moreover, if someone acts contrary to the law of God because of an erroneous conscience he is not excused from sin; if therefore one also sins by acting contrary to such an erring conscience, it would follow that whether or not he acts in accord with an erroneous conscience sin will result. Therefore he is in a dilemma such that he cannot avoid sin. But it seems impossible that someone sins because he cannot avoid it, according to Augustine; therefore it is impossible that such an erring conscience should bind.
9. Moreover, every sin falls into some category of sin; but if someone’s conscience tells him to fornicate, abstaining from fornication cannot be put into any category of sin; therefore one acting contrary to such a conscience would not sin; therefore such a conscience does not bind.
ON THE CONTRARY:
[1] There is what is said in Romans 14.23, ‘Whatever is not of faith is sin,’ on which the Gloss says, ‘That is, even what is good in itself can be a sin according to conscience.’ But a conscience which prohibits that which is good in itself is an erroneous conscience. Therefore, such a conscience binds.
[2] Moreover, to observe what the [old] law requires after the time of revealed grace was not indifferent but intrinsically evil; hence it is said in Galatians 5.2, ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you.’ But a conscience saying that circumcision should be observed obliged, hence in Galatians 5.3 is added, ‘And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the whole Law.’ Therefore an erroneous conscience binds even in intrinsically evil matters.
[3] Moreover, sin resides chiefly in the will. Whoever wills to transgress a divine precept has a bad will, and thus sins. But whoever believes something to be a precept and wills to transgress it, has the will not to serve the law; therefore he sins. One who has an erroneous conscience, whether about intrinsically evil matters or about whatever, believes that what is contrary to his conscience is contrary to the law of God. Therefore, if he wills to do it, he wills contrary to the will of God and thus sins. Thus a conscience in whatever way it be erroneous obliges on penalty of sin.
[4] Moreover, according to Damascene, conscience is the ‘law of our intellect’. But to act against the law is a sin. Therefore in whatever way a conscience be erroneous, it binds.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that there are different opinions about this. For some say that a conscience may err either about intrinsic evils or about matters of indifference and that a conscience erring about intrinsic evil does not bind whereas it does bind in matters of indifference. But those who say this seem not to understand what it is for conscience to bind. That conscience binds means that when one does not follow it he incurs sin, not that one following it does the right thing. Otherwise counsel would be said to bind, since one following it acts rightly. But we say that counsels do not bind because if one sets them aside he does not sin; and we are said to be bound by precepts because we incur sin when we do not observe them. Therefore conscience is not said to oblige us to do something because to follow it is good but because not to follow entails sin. But it does not seem possible that anyone could evade sin if his conscience in whatever way it might err judges something to be the precept of God, whether it be a matter of intrinsic evil or matters of indifference, and decides to the contrary while he still has that conscience. Taken as such, he wills not to observe the law of God, and thus sins mortally. Therefore although such an erroneous conscience can be changed, none the less while it remains it is binding, and one transgressing it necessarily incurs sin. A correct and erroneous conscience binds differently, however: a correct one binds absolutely and as such, whereas an erroneous one does so accidentally and in a certain respect.
I say that the correct conscience binds absolutely because it binds absolutely in every event. For if someone had a conscience that adultery should be avoided, this conscience could not be changed without sin, because if he would change it he errs by that very fact and sins gravely. While it remains, it cannot be ignored in an action without sin, hence it binds absolutely and in every event. But an erroneous conscience binds only relatively speaking and under a condition: he whose conscience tells him he must fornicate is only obliged not to avoid fornication without sin under this condition: while this conscience endures. But this condition can be removed without sin, hence such a conscience does not oblige in every event, since something can happen, namely a change of conscience, after which one is no longer bound. What is the case only under a condition is said to be in a certain respect.
I say also that a correct conscience binds per se, but an erroneous accidentally. He who wills or loves something for the sake of something else, loves that for the sake of which he loves the first per se, and what he loves for the sake of another he loves accidentally. For example, he who loves wine for the sake of its sweetness, loves sweetness per se and wine accidentally. He who has an erroneous conscience, believing it to be correct – otherwise he would not err – adheres to the erroneous conscience on account of the rectitude he thinks it to have; he adheres then per se speaking to a correct conscience and to the erroneous as it were accidentally, insofar as the conscience he believes to be correct is erroneous. Thence it is that he is bound, properly speaking, by a correct conscience, and accidentally by the erroneous. This solution can be taken from the Philosopher’s words in Ethics 7.9, where he asks practically the same question, namely whether it should be said that the incontinent is only one who withdraws from right reason or one who withdraws from false reason as well. He solves it by saying that the incontinent man withdraws per se from correct reason and accidentally from false – from the former simply speaking and from the latter in a certain respect, because what is per se is absolutely and what is accidental is in a certain respect.
Ad 1. It should be said therefore that although what an erroneous conscience dictates is not consonant with the law of God, it is taken by the one erring as the very law of God. Therefore per se if he violates it he violates the law of God, though not so accidentally.
Ad 2. It should be said that that argument works when there are distinct precepts of the superior and inferior and both arrive distinctly as such to the one obliged by the precept, which is not the case here because the dictate of conscience is the arrival of the precept of God to the one whose conscience it is, as is clear from the foregoing. It would be similar in the example proposed if the precept of the emperor could get to one only by the intermediary of the proconsul, and the proconsul would command what he does only as passing on the precept of the emperor. For then it would be the same thing to despise the precept of emperor and proconsul whether the proconsul told the truth or lied.
Ad 3. It should be said that an erroneous conscience erring about things which are intrinsically evil dictates what is contrary to the law of God, but says that what it dictates is the law of God; therefore one who transgresses this conscience is effectively a transgressor of the law of God, although in following this conscience and fulfilling it in deed he acts against the law of God and sins mortally, because in the very error there was sin since it came about through ignorance of that which he ought to know.
Ad 4. It should be said that when conscience is not probable it ought to be changed; but as long as it remains one sins mortally by acting against it. Hence by this it is not proven that an erroneous conscience does not bind while it remains but only that it does not bind simply speaking and in every event.
Ad 5. It should be said that from that argument it is not concluded that an erroneous conscience does not bind on penalty of sin if it is not fulfilled, but that if it is fulfilled it excuses from sin, hence it is not to the point. It concludes something true when the error itself is not a sin as for example when it is due to ignorance of fact. If, however, it is from ignorance of the law then it does not follow, because the very ignorance is a sin. Thus a secular judge does not excuse someone who pleads ignorance of a law which he ought to know.
Ad 6. It should be said that by natural reason one could arrive at the contrary of what the erroneous conscience dictates. Whether it be an error about indifferent or intrinsically evil acts, natural reason does not actually dictate the contrary; if it did conscience would not err.
Ad 7. It should be said that although an indifferent act as such can go either way, one who thinks it to fall under a precept makes it no longer indifferent on account of his judgement.
Ad 8. It should be said that he whose conscience tells him he ought to commit fornication is not in a dilemma simply speaking because he can do something which being done he would not fall into sin, namely, change his conscience. But he is in a dilemma in a certain respect, namely while the erroneous conscience remains; it is not absurd to say that, something being supposed, a man cannot avoid sin. For example, presupposing the intention of vainglory, he who is held to give alms cannot avoid sin, for if he gives with this intention, he sins, and if he does not give, he is a transgressor.
Ad 9. It should be said that when the erroneous conscience dictates that something ought to be done, it dictates it under some notion of good either as a work of justice or of temperance, and so on, and therefore the transgressor falls into the vice contrary to that virtue under which conscience dictates it; but if it dictates it under the aegis of a divine command or of some prelate one only incurs the sin of disobedience in transgressing conscience.
Article 5: In indifferent matters is conscience more binding than the command of a bishop?
It seems that it is less binding.
1. A religious subject vows obedience to his prelate, and he is held to keep his vow. Psalm 75.12: ‘Make ye vows and pay them to the Lord your God.’ It seems then that one is held to obey the command of the prelate rather than conscience.
2. Moreover, the prelate is always to be obeyed in things which are not against God. But matters of indifference are not against God. Therefore, in these he is held to obey the prelate, with the same result as in the previous case.
3. Moreover, the higher power is more to be obeyed than the lower, as the Gloss says on Romans 13.2. But the soul of the prelate is higher than that of the subject. Therefore the subject is more bound by the command of the prelate than by his own conscience.
4. Moreover, the subject ought not to judge the command of the prelate; rather the prelate judges the acts of the subject. But the subject would judge the command of the prelate if because of his own conscience he drew back from his command. Therefore, whatever conscience dictates in matters of indifference, he must go with the command of the prelate.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The spiritual bond is stronger than the corporeal, and is intrinsic rather than extrinsic. But conscience is an intrinsic spiritual bond and the prelate a corporeal and extrinsic one, as it seems, since every prelate acts by a temporal dispensation. Hence with the coming of eternity it is dissolved, as the Gloss says on 1 Corinthians 15.24. Therefore it seems that conscience is to be obeyed rather than the prelate.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the resolution of this question ought sufficiently to be seen from the foregoing.
For it was said above that conscience only binds because of the force of the divine command or because of the law of nature written within. Therefore, to compare the binding force of conscience and that of the command of the prelate is nothing other than to compare the binding force of the divine command and the command of the prelate. Hence, since the divine command binds against the command of the prelate, the binding force of conscience will be greater than the binding force of the prelate’s command, and conscience will bind if the command of the prelate is contrary to it.
But this comes about differently depending on whether conscience is
right or erroneous.
Correct conscience absolutely and perfectly obliges against the command of the prelate. Absolutely, because its obligation cannot be removed since such a conscience cannot be set aside without sin. Perfectly, because right conscience not only binds in this way that he who follows it incurs no sin, but also in that he is immune from sin no matter what command of the prelate be to the contrary.
Erroneous conscience binds against the command of the prelate in matters of indifference in a certain respect and imperfectly. In a certain respect, because it does not oblige in any event but only while it endures, for one can and ought to correct such a conscience. Imperfectly, because it binds insofar as he who follows it does not incur sin, but not in such a way that he avoids sin when the command of the prelate is to the contrary and obliges in that indifferent matter: in such a case he would sin, whether he acts, because he would act against his conscience, or whether he does not because he is disobedient to the prelate. He sins more if he does not do what his conscience dictates, while his [erroneous] conscience lasts, since it is more binding than the command of the prelate.
Ad 1. It should be said that he who vows obedience is held to obey in everything to which the good of obedience extends, nor can he be absolved from this obligation by an error of conscience, nor again can he be absolved from the binding force of conscience by this command: therefore he has two conflicting obligations. One of which, that of conscience, is greater, because more intense; the other is less and more dissolvable. The obligation to the prelate cannot be dissolved, as the erroneous conscience can be corrected.
Ad 2. It should be said that although that deed be indifferent in itself, it comes about that it is no longer indifferent by the dictate of conscience.
Ad 3. It should be said that although the prelate is superior to the subject, God, under the formality of whose command conscience is bound, is greater than the prelate.
Ad 4. It should be said that it is not for the subject to judge the command of the prelate, but to fulfil it. Everyone is bound to examine his acts in the light of the knowledge he has from God, whether natural, acquired or infused: every man ought to act according to reason.