archde n.o rg http://www.archden.o rg/index.cfm/ID/9021/9.16.

12---Blessed-Jo hn-Henry-Newman-and-the-Search-fo r-Truth-in-the-Po stRelativist-University/

Blessed John Henry Newman and the Search for Truth in the Post-Relativist University

Blessed John Henry Newman and the Search f or Truth in the Post-Relativist University By Most Rev. James D. Conley, S.T.L. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Saint Paul Parish Catholic Campus Center September 16, 2012 Good af ternoon everyone! Once again, I would like to thank Fr. Michael f or his kind and gracious invitation to address you this af ternoon. It was a joy to celebrate the special Mass of the Holy Spirit with you this morning as we called upon the Paraclete, the spirit of Truth, to guide us and bless us as we begin this new academic year. I am blessed and honored to be here at Harvard and, I must admit, a bit intimidated to be in such a f amous and historical place of learning and academics. But I am inspired by your university's motto Veritas, signif ying truth and I look f orward to ref lecting on the subject of truth in my talk this af ternoon. As I mentioned, this concept of truth, Veritas, is the topic of my remarks this af ternoon, as I'll be discussing the roots and the consequences of the denial of truth in education. As those consequences become manif est, I hope we may see a renewal of the pursuit of truth in our universities. T his af ternoons talk is partly about this hope. But it's also about the unspoken hunger f or truth, a passion f or truth, among young people, which can become a motivating f orce f or that reawakening. T he philosophy of relativism may still dominate large portions of the academic world, but it is my contention that the philosophy of relativism is not intellectually compelling or personally satisf ying f or some of today's brightest students. My hope is that this dissatisf action with relativism will be pursued. If so, we may be able to move toward a better post-relativist period in education one in which the idea of truth is not a taboo, or something to tiptoe around, but a central f ocus, an exciting romance and adventure. T he title of this talk is: Blessed John Henry Newman and the Search for Truth in the Post-Relativist University. I know it sounds a bit highf aluting but, hey, this is Harvard so I had to come up with an edgy title! Many f igures f rom the Catholic tradition can guide us in the intellectual renewal of our universities. Among the greatest and perhaps the most pertinent f or our time is the 19th-century English convert, priest, and author Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. A recent biographer of Blessed Newman, Fr. Juan Velez, summed up the Cardinal's lif e as one driven by a passion f or truth. [1] T he Victorian era abounded with f ormidable thinkers, but f ew were as deeply engaged

with the question of truth as John Henry Newman. First as an Anglican, and later as a Catholic, Newman took risks and made sacrif ices to pursue the truth. He f aced criticism, misunderstanding, and ostracism, particularly in 1845 when he came into f ull communion with the Church of Rome. He had discovered that only the Catholic Church possessed the f ullness of Divine revelation, along with the God-given means to uphold it and proclaim it to the world. Newman lived f rom 1801 to 1890, during an age in which religious truth was seen as increasingly irrelevant to public and even private lif e. During these same years, the multiplicity of Protestant denominations caused the f oundations of the Christian f aith to be called into question. One of Newman's deepest concerns throughout his academic career was to uphold Christianity as a religion f ounded not on human opinions and pref erences, but on revealed dogmatic truths. Newman opposed what he called religious liberalism which held that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another since all were supposedly just matters of opinion. Newman denounced this manif estation of relativism, which he described as inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. [2] By the end of his lif e, Newman's intellectual and personal integrity were widely admired even by those who did not share his Catholic f aith. [3] Today he remains a model and an inspiration, not just f or Catholics and other Christians, but f or anyone who recognizes the human person's capacity and need f or truth. Along with his concern f or religious truth, Newman was also occupied with related matters such as the f ormation of conscience and the intellectual lif e. He saw the university as an environment in which knowledge could be valued and pursued as a good in itself . In all of these areas, Blessed John Henry Newman spoke prophetically about many errors, which now dominate our cultural institutions some 150 years later. In particular, he stands out as a herald of truth in the f ace of relativism which poses a grave threat to both f aith and reason today. Relativism, as I'll explain shortly, ironically contains many of the seeds of its own undoing. T his ideology, also known as subjectivism, has certain inherent weaknesses. T his is because it goes against the grain of human nature, by denying or at least ignoring each person's capacity and need to possess the truth -to know the truth and to embrace it. Most of my priestly and episcopal ministry has been spent working with college students both as a chaplain and as a prof essor at three dif f erent institutions of higher learning (2 Catholic and one public.) And I have f ound that an increasing number of young people are beginning to discover that relativism or subjectivism is intellectually shallow and socially corrosive. T hey are tired of seeking self -f ulf illment in a wilderness of mirrors. T hey are f rustrated with having prof ound questions turned back on them as unanswerable. In short, they want truth. Catholics must initiate a dialogue with these young people, to help them discover the f ullness of truth as taught by the Church. Recently I returned f rom walking a portion of the Camino to Santiago de Compostela and that ancient pilgrimage route is f illed with young seekers, young souls who are searching f or meaning and purpose in lif e. Blessed John Henry Newman's thought is especially usef ul in this regard, since Newman was a skilled philosopher and social critic, as well as a teacher of the f aith. His thoughts on the question of truth merit consideration by all serious thinkers, particularly in our age of subjectivism and conf usion. I'll have more to say shortly about Newman's insight into the problem of relativism, which can serve as a

starting point f or dialogue with students who are f rustrated by it. But f irst, a bit of background is in order regarding the problem of relativism in the university. Where do things stand today, and how did we get there? Twenty-f ive years ago, the University of Chicago prof essor Allan Bloom touched of f a controversy over relativism with his book T he Closing of the American Mind. Bloom's critique began with the assertion that there is one thing a prof essor can be absolutely certain of : almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. [4] T hese students were otherwise quite diverse in their backgrounds and worldviews. What united them, Bloom said, was their belief in the relativity of truth, and the evil of supposed intolerance. Objective moral truths were out; they were replaced by self -determined personal values. [5] Bloom's students were not looking to be radical or rebellious. In f act, he thought they were adhering to a principle in which they'd been indoctrinated: the principle that all opinions must be regarded as equally valid, to ensure society's f reedom and the equality of individuals. Relativism was supposed to allow f or coexistence in a pluralistic society, by making everyone's dif f erences unimportant. [6] T his philosophy has come to dominate Western culture relatively recently. But its roots stretch back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant sought to prove that religious truth lay beyond the scope of human knowledge, and could not be known with certainty. T hat attack on revealed religion soon turned into an assault on moral f oundations. Utilitarianism and Marxism denied that man was bound by any transcendent moral law, while Nietzsche called f or a radical overturning of Jewish and Christian morality. Events of the 20th century, including globalization and the world wars, convinced many people that society should be based not on any particular set of moral principles, but on the maximum degree of toleration f or all possible values. So in 1987, when Allan Bloom described relativism as the university's prevailing orthodoxy, he was describing a late stage in a long process. In f act, much of what he described had been f oreseen and critiqued by Blessed John Henry Newman during the second half of the 19th century. One of the strongest critiques of relativism, in f act, is developed in Newman's 1874 Letter to the Duke of Norf olk, a book-length work touching on issues of conscience and f reedom, f rom a Catholic perspective. [7] Today's relativism is largely an extension of what Newman described, in that work, as a f alse conception of conscience and its rights. By understanding that f alse idea of conscience, we can pinpoint the problems with the ideology of relativism that arises f rom it. For reasons of both principle and convenience, Victorian England had come to accept the notion that individuals should enjoy some degree of liberty of conscience [8] by which was meant, a certain measure of intellectual and personal f reedom in public lif e. It was unclear, however, just how f ar this f reedom should extend, and on what basis it could be limited once it was granted in principle. Along with these questions, there were larger philosophical issues surrounding the question of personal and intellectual f reedom. Assuming such f reedom truly existed and was a positive good, what was its higher purpose? Was it an end in itself , or a means to something higher? T here was also the related question as to where those f reedoms came f rom in the f irst place. What gave the individual conscience its rights? What made them important or even sacred? T hese are not easy questions. But Blessed John Henry Newman managed to cut through much of the

T hese are not easy questions. But Blessed John Henry Newman managed to cut through much of the conf usion, in his writings on conscience and f reedom. He distinguished between true and f alse conceptions of conscience and its rights, by posing a f undamental question: Is conscience rooted in some f orm of transcendent moral law or not? If it is, then it f ollows that conscience has sacred rights but also serious responsibilities. And those rights and responsibilities derive f rom the same source which ultimately is God, and his law by which he has ordered the world [9]. Conscience has its rights precisely because that law must be f reely and willingly acknowledged, accepted, and f ollowed by each human person. Others, however, would attempt to explain conscience quite dif f erently. In particular, they would deny that it has any relation to a transcendent and eternal moral law. Conscience is then seen as responsible only to itself , and each individual becomes the supreme judge of how he uses his personal and intellectual f reedom. Like all of us, such a person still judges somehow between right and wrong; but he does so while rejecting either the existence or the accessibility of a transcendent standard by which to tell the dif f erence. He says either that there is no standard; or it cannot be known with any certainty; or that it does not really matter that he should have a f irm grasp of it as long as his intentions seem good to him that he meant well. In his Letter to the Duke of Norf olk, Newman drew a sharp distinction between these two accounts of conscience with one accepting and the other rejecting or ignoring the connection to an objective and transcendent moral law. In af f irming that law as the source of conscience, Newman f amously stated that conscience has rights because it has duties. We have a right to seek the truth with a certain f reedom, precisely because we have a duty to learn that truth and f reely obey it. [10] According to Newman, conscience must choose to embrace objective reality, which is not of our own making and is not up f or a vote. Conscience has f reedom so that it may give sincere assent to what is true. Such f reedom is not given f or us to embrace and f ollow whatever is to our liking. But that, indeed, is the nature of what Newman described as a miserable counterf eit which now goes by the name of conscience [11], claiming the rights of conscience without any acknowledgment of the corresponding duties. It claims the right f or each to be his own master in all things, and to prof ess what he pleases, without even worrying about whether one's opinions truly correspond to reality. [12] We are f amiliar with common catch phrases which illustrate this point: to each his own or whos to say or live and let live. On this account, f reedom of thought involves no obligation to seek and obey the truth, which may or may not exist or be knowable. In f act, many proponents of this view would say that conscience is entitled to f reedom precisely because matters of principle are ultimately just matters of opinion and personal pref erence. T he philosophical argument between these two positions has not advanced signif icantly since Newman wrote in the 1870s; but the two philosophies have each gained ground in dif f erent ways. Newman's account of conscience, as having rights because it has duties, helped to lay the f oundation f or the Catholic Church's teaching on the civil right to religious liberty and f reedom of conscience, in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae. Meanwhile, the counterf eit idea of conscience as having only rights, but no ultimate responsibilities became the basis f or our modern relativism. In continuity with the attitude described by Newman, relativism envisions f reedom of conscience simply as the right to think and act as one pleases without any higher justif ication f or doing so, and without any ref erence to the obligation to seek the truth. Given the ascendancy of the subjectivist ideology in recent decades, you may wonder why I would venture to

introduce the prospect of a post-relativist university climate. T his is, admittedly, a matter of speculation; but when we consider what relativism is, and what it does to individuals and societies, there are reasons to see it as unsustainable. T here are reasons to hope that some of our young intellectuals, even those who are not yet religious believers, may come to reject it. Perhaps you or your classmates are beginning to discover this f rustration, particularly those who prof ess no religious belief at all. It's my hope that these intellectual seekers will discover Newman's teaching, that conscience has rights in order to f ulf ill its responsibilities, the highest of which is to know God and embrace his revelation. T he strength of Newman's position, and the inherent weakness of relativism, can be seen vividly if we compare the conceptions of tolerance that arise f rom these respective accounts of conscience. By this comparison, we can see why the intellectual f laws of relativism produce such bad ef f ects in practice. Some Christians today regard tolerance as a bad word. T hey see it as a compromise of Christian values, a giving in to relativism. But there is a legitimate Catholic concept of tolerance, pioneered by Newman and taught by Vatican II, which holds that it is a duty ordinarily owed by those who know the truth, toward those who are in error. T hey, too, enjoy a certain f reedom of conscience which exists so that they may f reely discover and embrace objective truth. [13] Relativism, meanwhile, tries to establish a similar-sounding notion of tolerance on a completely dif f erent basis. It says that f reedom of conscience exists because the truth cannot be solidly established; there is simply a myriad of opinions, and one opinion has no right or superiority over another. All is to be tolerated because no one has access to any privileged position f rom which to judge. Whos to say? On the surf ace, the Catholic concept of tolerance may appear similar to that of relativism. In reality, however, they completely diverge. T he Christian idea of tolerance is based on the human dignity of others, and it promotes a legitimate f reedom of conscience as a precondition f or helping them seek the truth. T he Catholic Church holds that we are obliged to tolerate, within due limits, the thoughts and actions of those in error, so that they may seek the truth without coercion. [14] Christian tolerance is f undamentally an orientation of love toward those in error, borne of an understanding that God wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. [15] (Tim 2:3-4). I am called to imitate God's patience and mercy toward those who do not yet know him or accept his revelation. Relativistic tolerance, on the other hand, states that everything is to be tolerated precisely because truth cannot be ascertained. It says we must tolerate nearly all thoughts and actions simply because we are not in a position to say they are wrong. Again: whos to say, to each his own, live and let live. T his concept of tolerance replaces the Christian ideal of love with an attitude of indif f erence. Instead of giving the other person the f reedom to seek the truth in a dignif ied way, it simply leaves him alone to do whatever he likes. His f reedom has no higher goal or obligation. Between any two individuals, there is no necessary connection except an agreement to disagree. Here, again, the dif f erence lies in Newman's distinction. Does conscience have certain sacred rights because it also has sacred duties? Do its rights stem f rom its obligations, to truth and ultimately to God? Or, alternatively, does conscience simply have what Newman called the right of self -will, to think and act more or less as it pleases with no higher justif ication, with no connection with objective truth? [16] Is conscience alone bef ore the truth, and ultimately bef ore God? Or is it simply alone with itself , in pure autonomy?

Here, we reach the heart of the dif f erence between these two conceptions of personal and intellectual f reedom; and here, too, we see how relativism becomes a justif ication f or individuals ignoring and disregarding one another. T he truly subjectivist conscience can't meaningf ully see itself as present bef ore God who knows all things, or bef ore the truth accessible to all. It's simply alone, by itself . On this account, f reedom of conscience is f reedom f rom objective reality and shared responsibility. I get to def ine the meaning of my lif e; but it has that meaning only to me and not in any objective sense. My choices are sacrosanct only because they are also irrelevant to others; and I am f ree because I am walled-of f f rom them. Conscience is no longer a sanctuary, but a bunker. Where tolerance is exalted as an absolute, an end in itself , each person ends up imprisoned within his self contained f reedom. A sense of solidarity is lost, and the preconditions of meaningf ul interaction are weakened. T he resulting mental environment is one in which others simply assume that one's most prof ound convictions are only a subjective pref erence, not subject to rational investigation or discourse. Truth is devalued, and truth-claims are widely considered automatically invalid. Finally, in an environment that exalts the f reedom to seek one's own truth, many people simply def ault to seeking pleasure, convenience, and advantage f or themselves, while adopting ideologies that justif y such choices in various areas of lif e. Even in the f ace of disastrous consequences, many observers seem unwilling to place any blame on moral subjectivism or a f alse vision of f reedom. In short, relativism isolates individuals f rom one another, while impoverishing discourse and undermining the moral f oundations of community lif e. Authentic communities cannot be built upon an ideology that f osters interpersonal isolation, personal immorality, and intellectual shallowness. What, then, is needed to help the university emerge into a better post-relativist situation, rather than moving toward something even worse? Catholics and other Christians have an important role to play in reorienting the university, and the broader culture, toward the pursuit of truth. Our mission of evangelization, in this regard, is universal. Within the university, however, there is another subgroup of students whose passion f or truth has gone largely unrecognized. I want to conclude tonight's talk by describing this type of student, and explaining how Newman's critique of subjectivism can help them discover what they're looking f or. Here at Harvard, and at schools across the country, I believe there are many intellectually serious young people who f ind the dominant subjectivist viewpoint both intellectually and personally f rustrating. T his f rustration does not spring f rom a religious commitment, or any comparable adherence to a particular conception of truth. Quite of ten, it arises among those who consider themselves agnostics, or prof ess a lack of interest in religion. While they are uncertain as to what exactly is true, they sense on an almost visceral level that something must be. T hey are struck by lif e's beauty, by its signif icance and its mysterious depths. T hey f eel a sort of awe bef ore the capacity of the human mind and the complexity of the world set bef ore it. But these individuals are also troubled by the human experience, in a way that no sociopolitical proposal can ever satisf y. T hey wonder: Why is lif e so f leeting? Why is it marred by suf f ering and injustice? And why have such diverse answers historically been proposed to these ultimate questions? T hese are not idle curiosities. T hey are existential dilemmas that do not go away, even when an individual, or an entire culture, chooses to turn their back to them. Even today, there are young people who place more importance on these questions than on worldly success or even personal happiness.

If students care passionately about these questions, they will not be satisf ied with the pseudo-answer given by relativism, which says, in ef f ect, that there are no answers, but only an endless array of equally valid options and opinions f rom which one may choose at will. Whether or not they realize it, these young people are reacting against the f alse conception of conscience that gave rise to relativism. On some deep level, they have begun to grasp the dif f erence between the real rights of conscience, and that miserable counterf eit that Newman described as claiming merely the right of self will. T hese students have f elt the isolating ef f ects of the idea that each person's supposed truth can be just as valid as anyone else's. T hey f eel the damage inf licted on their f riendships and relationships by a moral subjectivism that calls all responsibilities and duties into question. Today's Catholic intellectuals have a particular duty toward these students, who demonstrate such a passion f or truth in the midst of a relativistic environment. We have the chance to shape the f uture of our institutions, and the direction of culture, by proposing our f aith to them in a serious, respectf ul dialogue. T he f act is many of today's students do not need to be told that relativism is a lie. Experience has shown them that, and in their hearts they know it. More than this, I think, they need to be conf irmed and encouraged in their search f or that truth which is the same yesterday, today and f orever. [17] As Catholics, we know that the Church possesses the f ullness of divinely revealed truth. But we also know that authentic f aith requires a sincere, complete, and unequivocal assent that comes f rom deep within the soul. God uses us to help prepare the souls of others; yet ultimately, one person cannot bring f orth the assent of f aith in another. We must help and guide students toward the Church; but they must cross its threshold with God alone. Yet there is a way in which we can help them prepare even f or this. Namely, we can encourage our partners in dialogue to acknowledge, and f ulf ill, the real and serious duties of authentic moral conscience. We must help our f riends to distinguish the true conception of conscience f rom the f alse right of self -will. In this way, we can help them discover the real purpose of that intellectual and personal f reedom which God has granted them. Better still, we will be helping them to hear the voice of God speaking within their souls. And this, I believe, is what Pope Benedict XVI is calling f or in this upcoming special Year of Faith and the call of the New Evangelization. And each one of us who have been given the precious and inestimable gif t of the Catholic f aith has a role to play. In our dialogue with a rising generation of intellectuals, we must urge them to look inward with great courage, and with the utmost honesty. For these are the preconditions of a moral, intellectual, and spiritual awakening an awakening not to one's own subjective pref erences, but at last, to the truth. By examining their own consciences in a serious and caref ul manner, those who seek the truth may come to discover the transcendent law written on every human heart. T here, within the sanctuary of the authentic human conscience, they may f ind not only God's law, but the presence of God himself . [18] Not all students will necessarily possess the maturity to undertake such self -examination at a young age. But those who do may begin to discover the truth about themselves, about this world, and about the Lord who created and redeemed them. By awakening to the true meaning of conscience, these students may awaken to the true meaning of lif e itself to that f ullness of wisdom and knowledge f ound in Our Lord Jesus Christ. [19]

And so, I conclude that the recovery of f aith and reason in the post-relativist university should begin with a rediscovery of the true meaning of conscience. In this prospect, I f ind great hope f or our universities, and f or the Church, in the coming years. May God, in his mercy, grant it. Blessed John Henry Newman, pray f or us.

Notes: 1. About Passion f or Truth, T he Lif e of John Henry Newman http://www.johnhenrynewman-passionf ortruth.com/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=34 T he biography paints a picture of Newmans intellectual honesty and courage in the pursuit of religious truth. 2. Biglietto Speech (1879) http://www.newmanreader.org/works/addresses/f ile2.html#biglietto For thirty, f orty, f if ty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth ... Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and f orce daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, f or all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective f act, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his f ancy. 3. Newman and Beatif ication http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Cardinal-Newman/Newman-s-Beatif ication/Newman-andBeatif ication/(language)/eng-GB At his death in 1890, countless testimonies appeared even the staunchly Protestant Evangelical Magazine proclaimed that of the multitude of saints in the Roman calendar there are very f ew that can be considered better entitled to that designation than Cardinal Newman. 4. Allan Bloom, T he Closing of the American Mind (Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 25 5. ibid, pg. 194 We have come back to the point where we began, where values take the place of good and evil. (emphasis in original) 6. ibid, pg. 25-26 Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education f or more than f if ty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the f ace of various claims to truth and various ways of lif e and kinds of human beings is the great insight of our time. T he true believer is the real danger. 7. A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norf olk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation (Letter to the Duke of Norf olk), Ch. 1: Introductory Remarks http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section1.html T he main question which Mr. Gladstone has started I consider to be this:Can Catholics be trustworthy subjects of the State? has not a f oreign Power a hold over their consciences such, that it may at any time be used to the serious perplexity and injury of the civil government under which they live? Not that Mr. Gladstone conf ines himself to these questions, f or he goes out of his way, I am sorry to say, to taunt us with our loss of mental and moral f reedom, a vituperation which is not necessary f or his purpose at all. He inf orms us too that we have 'repudiated ancient history,' and are rejecting modern 'thought,' and that our Church has been 'ref urbishing her rusty tools,' and has been lately aggravating, and is likely still more to aggravate, our state of bondage. 8. On motives f or Catholic emancipation in the decades preceding Victoria's reign, cf . William Lily, England (Since the Ref ormation), in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm It would be an error to impute the prevalence of a milder spirit towards Catholics at this period to sympathy with their religion. It arose rather f rom the relaxation of dogmatic belief , the latitudinarianism, the

indif f erentism which is a notable sign of those times, and which inf ected Catholics as well as Protestants throughout Europe. 9. Letter to the Duke of Norf olk, Ch. 5: Conscience http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certain character, which, expressed in human language, we call ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wisdom, sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal characteristics in His nature, the very Law of His being, identical with Himself ; and next, when He became Creator, He implanted this Law, which is Himself , in the intelligence of all His rational creatures. T he Divine Law, then, is the rule of ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a sovereign, irreversible, absolute authority in the presence of men and Angels T his law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called 'conscience;' and though it may suf f er ref raction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not theref ore so af f ected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. 10. Letter to the Duke of Norf olk, Ch. 5 Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and f reedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. 11. ibid. But, of course, I have to say again, lest I should be misunderstood, that when I speak of Conscience, I mean conscience truly so called. When it has the right of opposing the supreme, though not inf allible Authority of the Pope, it must be something more than that miserable counterf eit which, as I have said above, now goes by the name. 12. ibid. When men advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. T hey do not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they demand, what they think is an Englishman's prerogative, f or each to be his own master in all things, and to prof ess what he pleases, asking no one's leave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. 13. Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatishumanae_en.html, sect. 1 T his Vatican Council likewise prof esses its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations f all and exert their binding f orce. T he truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power. Religious f reedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to f ulf ill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity f rom coercion in civil society. T heref ore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. 14. ibid, sect. 2 T his Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious f reedom. T his f reedom means that all men are to be immune f rom coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be f orced to act in a manner contrary to his own belief s, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and f ree will and theref ore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. T hey are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity f rom external coercion as well as psychological f reedom. T heref ore the right to religious f reedom has its f oundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it

and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. 15. 1 Timothy 2:3-4, NAB God our savior wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. 16. Letter to the Duke of Norf olk, Ch. 5 http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html [Conscience] becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterf eit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of , and could not have mistaken f or it, if they had. It is the right of self -will. 17. Hebrews 13:8, RSV Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and f or ever. 18. Gaudium et Spes, sect. 16 quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1778 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. T here he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. 19. Colossians 2:2-3, RSV ... to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. ###