On Conscience and Modernism

I picked up the book On Conscience by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (that would be the Pope) and I am finding it very thought provoking. The book consists of two essays given by the Pope (though when he gave them he was not the Pope) as lectures at workshops of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (one in 1984 and the other in 1991).

I should tell you at this point that I'm not at all Catholic. Not in the slightest. However, when I was perusing the little bookstore in the airport on my last trip I just flipped through this book and I found some of it interesting. The primary thesis in the first essay (Conscience and Truth) is that the conscience is more complex than simply the subjective certainty of man regarding his own actions and is answerable to more than simply itself; and further, that if this is not properly understood then it leads to a system of ethical relativity in the culture where confidence in actions by the powerful render them morally acceptable. The Pope puts it like so:

It will not do to identify man's conscience with the self-consciousness of the "I," with its subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior. One the one hand, this consciousness may be a mere reflection of the social surroundings and the opinions in circulation. On the other hand, it might also derive from a lack of self-criticism, a deficiency in listening to the depths of one's own soul.

or again:

The identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions, and debases these with every passing day. Whoever equates conscience with superficial conviction identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty that in fact has been woven from self-righteousness, conformity, and lethargy.

I agree with what he is saying here and I think we can easily see this proven in Western culture. Look at what has been "right" and "wrong" in the past 100 years in America, for example. For that matter, consider what has been "right" and "wrong" in simply the past 20 years in America. Is what was "wrong" 20 years ago that is considered "right" today "right" or is it "wrong?" Many would read that question and say that the question itself is a problem since what is "right" and "wrong" today or yesterday has no meaning and that proves the point precisely, of course.

The Pope points this out like so (and attaches it to the concept of progress):

The individual may not achieve his advancement or well-being at the cost of betraying what he recognizes to be true; nor may humanity. Here we come in contact with the really critical issue of the modern age. The concept of truth has been virtually given up, and replaced by the concept of progress. Progress itself "is" the truth. But through this seeming exaltation, progress loses its direction and becomes nullified. For if no direction exists everything can just as well be regress as progress.

To get a bearing and progress you have to have a fixed point. The Pope is here saying that there exists no fixed point to take a bearing from and actually progress so we may just as well go in a circle instead.

This goes along with some thoughts I've been having lately. Modernist thinking believes that there is a science to everything and application of scientific principles to every aspect of culture and society lead to advancement in all fields. It seems fairly obvious from a cursory look at the history of biblical interpretation (and especially since it has been "modernized" by the application of the historical-critical method) to see that such a notion is, in fact, nonsense when applied to a field where a fixed point cannot be established outside of the material under study. You have to have something to put a mark on so that when you move forward you can look back and understand that you have moved forward. This is very simple with the hard sciences since the body of applicable knowledge is expanding and can be tested by experimental means, but this is much more difficult with other areas we have tried to apply science to and in many cases all we have succeeded in doing, it seems, is creating systems of scholarly jargon so that a particular field sounds scientific when it is, in fact, not. Postmodern thinking is chipping away at the roots of scientific knowledge and it is starting with the fields of endeavor that are merely myth decorated with jargon since they are clearly the most vulnerable. The job is more difficult with the hard sciences but their truth can also be undermined because too often they have allied themselves with the other systems and are unwilling to give them up therefore their hypocrisy can be pointed out and this can be used to place doubt in the mind of the culture as it regards all of the truth being propagated by all of the sciences. I wonder what will come of this. Poor folks like Richard Dawkins still believe that logic and rational debate can clear the air and find the truth but the ax of the current cultural shift that is taking place is at the roots of his tree and although it seems likely that rational atheism will suffer greatly from this its impact on Christianity will probably be an increase in the emphasis on mysticism. It is happening slowly but it seems that this shift is already taking place. People probably like all of their technological conveniences too much to allow it to progress all the way to another Dark Ages but what will swing the pendulum back in the other direction?

There Is a Way That Seems Right

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (Proverbs 14:12)

This passage from Proverbs frightens me. The part that I find so disturbing is most specifically the part about a way that "seems right to a man." I find it frightening because it doesn't say, "There is a wrong way that a man decides to do even when he knows what the right way is" but rather that the way "seems right" meaning that when I am on it, then it seems like the correct thing to do. I'd like to think that the ways I am choosing are either obviously right or obviously wrong and when I'm on the wrong path then I am only on it because I want to be. That is, I'm being willful and rebellious and I know it. But this passage indicates that this isn't always the case and rather there is a way that I think is right but which is not. What is twisting my judgment like this? In the book of James we find:

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (James 1:14-15)

I read this passage and I'm inclined to believe that this is the type of temptation that I know about, acknowledge as such, fight, and end up yielding to. We know what kind of temptations those are and we live with them all of the time. But it seems to me that there are more dangerous temptations and they are the ones that we find a way to justify. So we are still led astray by our own desires, but in the latter case we decide that those desires are acceptable, that is, they are "right" and then when "desire is conceived" and "gives birth to sin" we are now more likely than ever to allow that sin to become fully grown and "bring forth death" because our guard is completely down. Thomas à Kempis writes about this like so:

We frequently judge that things are as we wish them to be, for through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost.

and again:

Many, unawares, seek themselves in the things they do.

Our own emotions and desires cloud our judgment and "through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost." It is this kind of temptation that is the more dangerous kind and it is this kind that the writer in Proverbs discusses when he says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." The person being discussed cannot see that the end is the way to death because they so long for it to be the way to life and, though unawares, "Seek themselves in the things they do." We are all like this to some degree. We judge a great many things around us in a relative sense to the things we care about and desire. Our judgment is not absolute and we are unwilling to submit to God in all that we do. We determine that passages we read in the Bible don't apply to us for some reason or another or we decide they mean something other than what they clearly state because what they clearly state is against our own desires. So, "hearing we do not hear, and seeing we do not see, or understand."

Worse than Death

A common mindset of the current era is that our physical well-being is somehow more important than anything else. You can see this if you look at all of the people exercising and eating so that they can "live longer." How long is it possible to live, anyway, and how much longer can your life get if you exercise like a maniac and eat only the very best things? It seems clear that no matter what we do, we all still die. Because of this, we have to get into a mindset for what comes after death. Obviously if you are an atheist then nothing comes after death for you so the point is moot, but if you are a Christian then you believe that there is something else and you believe that this something else will last forever. Therefore, the life we have after death is what matters and this life is of importance only as far as it has an impact on that life after death. This concept is entirely biblical. In fact, the idea that this life matters at all for its own sake is just utter nonsense from the Bible's point of view.

For what is the hope of the godless when God cuts him off, when God takes away his life? Will God hear his cry when distress comes upon him? (Job 27:8-9) If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30) For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)

Jesus turns on its head the idea that our peace and safety here means anything at all by pointing out that it is better for us to have no peace and no safety here (plucked out eyes and chopped off hands) as long as we can follow him to heaven. This thought for our life after death should permeate our lives here. It should form how we treat our jobs, our things, and most especially how we bring up our children. Too often our thinking for them is of their physical and material safety. As long as they have a roof over their heads and enough to eat we determine that they must be fine and we must be good parents. Such thinking is nonsense in the context of an afterlife. It is strange that many Christians have such a materialistic mindset for their children even if they do not have it for themselves. Their own peace and safety here on earth is, like ours, secondary to the safety of their eternal souls. If we understand Christ's lesson and do not forfeit our own souls but we forfeit theirs in a warped reading of the Word then how much mercy can we as children expect from our own Father in heaven who has chosen never to abandon us, even when we were worth abandonment?