A.

    MAN’S SANCTUARY: CONSCIENCE

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1. THE MEANING OF CONSCIENCE

One God-given capacity and attribute of man is the conscience. This is the inner ‘voice’
of God that guides man toward the election of the good and obliges him/her to be faithful to
his/her dignity. Conscience is one of the many ways through which man is assisted in the journey
back to God. And it must not be taken as a feeling of guilt only whenever a person did something
that is not morally, socially and ethically acceptable. Usually, people are taught that conscience
is the voice of the angel and the devil as if confusing those who are torn in doing and not doing a
certain action. Therefore, some misconstrue conscience to be an external reality that operates in
man whenever there is a need to choose between the good and the bad.

Conscience has been a controversial idea, if not a concept, in the Catholic doctrine.
Though controversial and sometimes misunderstood, the Church stands firmly that it has a huge
influential role in the lives of the faithful. Given the many distractions that obscure people from
what is good and what is not, conscience is present to help the Christian in navigating his/her
way back to God.

To start, let’s have a working definition of what conscience is and one by one, let us
unveil the necessary principles needed to shed light on this very controversial yet very profound
teaching of the Church.
  

First, there are some references in the sacred scriptures that point to conscience and its
influence on how it is understood today.

From the Book of Deuteronomy[1] “For this law which I am laying down for you today
is neither obscure for you nor beyond your reach. It is not in heaven...nor is it beyond the
seas...No, the word is very near to you. It is in your mouth and in your heart for you to put into
practice.”

Another can be located in the book of the prophet Jeremiah[2], it states: “But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord, I will place
my law within them, and write it upon their hearts: I will be their God and they shall be my
people. No longer will they have need to teach their friends and kinsmen how to know the Lord.”

And in the New Testament, St. Paul counsels in the Letter to the Romans[3] that: “They
can demonstrate the effect of Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears
witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some which accuse them, while others
provide them with a defence.”   

Second, from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council conscience is referred to as the
following:  From the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, conscience "as
man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his
depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love
of God and one's neighbor".[4]

The Council added that, "Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other
men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in
the life of individuals and from social relationships. 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".[5]

In its Declaration on Religious Liberty[6], the council went on to say that, "It is through
his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to
follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity, so that he may come to God, who is his last
end. Therefore, he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented
from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters". The above definitions
will be reiterated by John Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor but his addition will be that:
conscience is also a “witness” for man, a witness of God’s caring love that directs a person’s
activities toward his or her own flourishing (and ultimately toward union with God)[7]. 

Lastly, from the Catechism for Filipino Catholics conscience is defined as “the norm of
personal morality, our ultimate subjective norm for discerning moral good and evil, with the
feeling of being bound to follow its directive. It is summoning us to love the good and avoid evil.
Also, conscience is taken as an objective moral norm to our particular acts. And to agree with GS
16, conscience gives the command of do this, don’t do that.”[8]

2. CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

From St. Thomas Aquinas, his views on conscience can be found in Summa Theologiae
Ia, Q. 70, art. 12 and 13. The summary are as follows: 
  

Properly speaking, conscience is not a power, but an act. This is evident both
from the very name and from those things which in the common way of speaking
are attributed to conscience. For conscience, according to the very nature of the
word, implies the relation of knowledge to something: for conscience may be
resolved into "cum alio scientia," i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case.
But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act. Wherefore
from this explanation of the name it is clear that conscience is an act.[9]

The same is manifest from those things which are attributed to conscience. For
conscience is said to witness, to bind, or incite, and also to accuse, torment, or
rebuke. And all these follow the application of knowledge or science to what we
do: which application is made in three ways. One way in so far as we recognize
that we have done or not done something; "Thy conscience knoweth that thou hast
often spoken evil of others" (Eccle 7:23), and according to this, conscience is said
to witness. In another way, so far as through the conscience we judge that
something should be done or not done; and in this sense, conscience is said to
incite or to bind. In the third way, so far as by conscience we judge that something
done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to excuse,
accuse, or torment. Now, it is clear that all these things follow the actual
application of knowledge to what we do. Wherefore, properly speaking,
conscience denominates an act. But since habit is a principle of act, sometimes the
name conscience is given to the first natural habit—namely, 'synderesis': thus
Jerome calls 'synderesis' conscience (Gloss. Ezech. 1:6); Basil [*Hom. in princ.
Proverb.], the "natural power of judgment," and Damascene [*De Fide Orth. iv.
22] says that it is the "law of our intellect." For it is customary for causes and
effects to be called after one another.

3. CONSCIENCE AND THE SUPEREGO

Before delving deeper into the complexities of conscience, we must first differentiate
conscience from how psychology has viewed it. From the recent studies, conscience can be
paralleled to what we call the Superego. This idea is rooted in the concept of personality
structure of Sigmund Freud where he used the iceberg to demonstrate the different ways by
which a person’s perspective is shaped and influenced. This iceberg analogy, wherein only a
small portion (the tip) of the iceberg is exposed to the world and a big chunk of it is submerged
into the waters. The different parts are as follows: First, he identified the libido. According to
Freud, this is the instinctive basic, unconscious, sexual energy in each individual. This libido is
housed in the Id and is commonly known as the ‘Pleasure Principle’ which always pushes for the
immediate gratification. So when a person is hungry he/she eats; when he/she is thirsty, he/she
drinks, and so on. These two aspects are subconscious and can influence a person’s actions by
being controlled by them if not tempered, especially the libido.[10]

Next is the ego which is the portion of the personality that organizes, plans, and keeps the
person in touch with reality. Language and thought are both ego functions. Freud calls this the
‘Reality Principle.’ Ego is usually expressed through the language we use and is affected by the
reactions we incite from others. The way we express ourselves through language can definitely
elicit various reactions from the people around us[11]. Thus, when we do not get the responses
we want and when people disagree with our ideas, we say: tinatapakan mo ang ego ko.  This ego
is greatly influenced by what Freud called as the superego. He defined this as the ‘conscience’
part of the personality, which contains the parental and societal values and attitudes incorporated
during childhood. Thus, tagging it as the ‘Ought Principle’ and from here starts that confusion
between the superego and the conscience[12].

To further understand the difference of the superego and the conscience, we consult
Richard Gula, a Sulpician Priest who dedicated an entire article entitled: Conscience and
Conscience Formation, to pin point the variation of the two and how they are to help each other
in leading the person toward the pastoral-ethical life. In his discussion, he proposed that before
digging deeper into the study and formation of conscience, one must first distinguish superego’s
role in the person’s personality structure. According to him, the superego is like an attic where
all our childhood experiences are stored. Subconsciously, those experiences somewhat become
the ‘voice’ that tells the person to do and believe in something. For him, a person is following
his/her superego because it fills the empty chambers of his/her need to be loved and
accepted[13]. Guilt is its powerful weapon[14]. This is the reason why many of us listen to our
superegos than our consciences because it brings us the love and acceptance that we all
frustratingly long for. And through this, people are not aware and concerned whether following
their superegos will bring them harm or benefit; good and evil.
 Fr. Gula suggests that in order to distinguish the superego and the conscience, one must
be courageous enough to revisit one’s childhood experiences, no matter how painful those might
be, and reflect on how those past events have moulded his/her perspectives in life. This very
much agrees with Freud’s proposition that the submerged part of one’s personality must be
brought into the light in order to have a holistic view of the person and identify the strong
influences which pushes him/her to think and act in a certain way. For if one acts only to gain
love and acceptance, then definitely, one is not faithful to one’s conscience.

Some examples worth mentioning are our need to be the center of attention, to be
successful and to be loved. The first need pertains to the attention that is given to us by the
people around us whether it is in the workplace, school, church or just even in casual dates with
friends. There are people among us who would monopolize conversations, do strange things,
compose well-structured sentences, or even utter out-this-world facts just to ensure that the
attention of the group never leaves them. In fact, some would even go the extreme of wanting to
be the topic of conversation. In the second need, we have among us who have offered themselves
up to their careers. They stay up late and wake up very early in order to rush to work and spend
the whole day in meetings after meetings. They face their phones and computers the whole day
trying to make sure that their professional life is on track. Sometimes we wonder where they get
all their energies to beat the deadlines and how in the world they are able to joggle between
social and professional life. But even then, all these are all in the name of money and success. In
the third need, we encounter people who will do everything just to be accepted and loved by the
people around them. They submit and never complain for they believe that through that,
consciously and unconsciously, they will gain the love they crave. These people sometimes are
very prone to be used and abused by those who take advantage of their submissiveness.

The three needs mentioned above can best be understood if one were to peek inside the
childhood experiences of those people exhibiting the said behaviours. In the first case, it may be
safe to assume that the person had either been a victim of indifference or was treated like a
prince or princess in their household while he/she was growing up. In the first instance, the
person might have experienced that the parents, grandparents, uncle, auntie or whoever was the
authority figure in the house had a favourite. All the attention was given to another person and
not to him/her. This developed in the person the need to be noticed and given attention so that is
why if the person sees an opportunity to shine and prove his/her self-worth to others, they grab it.
On the other hand, the opposite is also possible. The person may have experienced too much
attention while he/she was growing up. The person was treated as if he/she was the only existing
person in the world. All attention was given and all what this person’s wants were provided. This
kind of environment developed in the person a sense of entitlement that all the attention in the
world must only be his/hers. And whenever situations occur wherein other people are noticed
and praised, they resent.

The same holds true for the second case. The need to be successful was perhaps a result
of being belittled and underestimated by those who were supposed to uplift the morale of a
person. This experience may have inculcated in the person the idea that the only way to be loved
and be accepted is to be good at everything or well accomplished in a certain field. The opposite
is also possible, it might be true as well that the person might have been given too much praises
and sometimes exaggerated honorifics that while growing up the child thought that he/she is the
best person in the world. This on the other hand may have placed in the person the notion that
his/her worth depends only on what he/she can achieve. So, the person carries this need to
achieve, accomplish and be successful for he/she thinks that people’s appreciation, love and
acceptance depend on the work that is done.

So, can you speculate on the third case and how does this contribute to a certain attitude
and perspective in life? What kind of superego ‘voice’ will this produce in a person and how will
that affect the person’s relationship with the people around him/her?

The examples mentioned above are very limiting. There are a wide variety of experiences
that all of us would need to look into so that we can identify what and which voice we are
following. Is it the conscience or the superego? Maybe some of you might ask what is the
significance of having this differentiation between the conscience and the superego? The answer
is simple: awareness. If a person is not aware of the influences that surround his/her decision,
there is big tendency that the person is not faithful to his/her conscience. Furthermore, the inner
‘voices’ that we follow must be properly distinguished in order to know what the will of God for
us truly is. This is the way by which we are to fulfil what Freud proposed that we must be able to
bring to light to those aspects of our lives which are submerged beneath the waters so that we
will have the control over our passions and our urges. 

To further deepen the discussion on the superego and the conscience, a comprehensive
presentation of the characteristics of the two is presented to us by Fr. Gula. In here, he presented
a chart[15] differentiating the commands that come from both the superego and the
conscience[16]. This helps as a guide in knowing which ‘voice’ we follow when we are faced
with minor and major decisions in our lives. 

Superego Conscience
Authority-figure oriented, commands that an Value oriented; responds to value regardless
act be performed for the sake of approval. of whether the authority has commanded for.
Is selfish; its main concern is to experience Conscience is other-oriented; its a radical
oneself as being lovable and accepted. invitation to love God in loving others.
Is static; does not grow and develop; cannot Is dynamic, creative, risk-taker, it develops
function creatively in a new situation but and grows; it is able to deal with new and
merely repeats a command. challenging situations.
Concerned with past acts and sometimes Primarily concerned with the present and the
seeks punishment in order to regain favour future. It seeks to make up for the past
with the authority figure. mistakes only as part of living out the value
and commitment in the present and the future.
Always looks backward with feelings of guilt Is always forward looking in order to improve
over past misdeeds. It tends to act the present and make the future brighter.
independently, without modification of reason
and experience.
It tends to act independently, without Acts with prudence based on reason
modification of reason and experience. experience in the light of faith.
Tends to look at the small actions as Looks at the small action in relation to a
important. bigger value in question.
Punishment is the sure guarantee of Reparation comes through structuring the
reconciliation. The more severe the future orientation toward the value in
punishment, the more certain one is being question. Creating a new future is also the
reconciled. way to make good the past.
The transition from guilt to self-renewal Self-renewal is a gradual process of growth
comes fairly easily and rapidly by means of which characterizes all dimensions of
confessing to the authority. personal development.
Often finds a great disproportion between Experience of guilt is proportionate to the
feelings of guilt experienced and the value at degree of knowledge and freedom as well as
stake, for extent of guilt depends more on the the weight of the value at stake, even though
significance of authority figure ‘disobeyed’ the authority may never have addressed the
than the weight of the value at stake. specific value.