Freedom of Conscience: Sauce for the Gander?

Questions of Conscience (1):

opening a new series of posts offering reflections on this theme

by Canon Giles Goddard, Vicar of St John’s, Waterloo and a consultant to the LLF Implementation Pastoral Reassurance Working Group

We are hearing a lot about freedom of conscience at the moment. Some who oppose the introduction of Prayers for Love and Faith (PLF) are seeking assurances that they will be free to act according to their conscience, or that they will not be required to act against their conscience. In an open letter on 10th Feb 2023 the Archbishop asked the forbearance of the Diocese of York “as the work is done to ensure that freedom of conscience is properly respected.”

The appeal to conscience is often seen as an ultimate moral arbiter, particularly among those who would resist what they see as innovations. Readers of this blog may remember ‘Cost of Conscience,’ an organisation which was vocal in the earlier years of this century in opposition to the ordination of women. Conscience is much cited amongst those opposed to abortion.

I was glad to be asked to write something for Via Media on the subject, not least because I have been drawn back into the Living in Love and Faith process as a consultant to the Pastoral Reassurance Working Group. So I have been reflecting on and reading around the nature of conscience, and what status it might have in current discussions about ethical and liturgical practice within the Church of England.

The word ‘conscience’ is an elision of two Latin roots; con and scio: meaning something like ‘knowing with’ or ‘knowing alongside.’ Conscience tends to be focused inwards, towards the actions of the self. According to philosopher Alberto Giubilini, there are in the history of philosophy four predominant understandings of conscience: it can be seen as a faculty for self-knowledge and self-assessment, or as having an epistemic function in the sphere of morality, or as a motivational force, or as a set of self-identifying moral beliefs. Within the Anglican tradition it is, according to this very helpful lecture by Revd Dr. Michael Hull of the Scottish Episcopal Church, “that God-given capacity that allows us to adjudicate the rightness of our action and also to show, fully, our integrity to God.”

In other words, conscience is not the absolute arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. It is the human capacity to identify, to ourselves, what we understand to be the right course of action in an ethical context. Thomas Aquinas recognised that conscience may err. John Calvin saw conscience as a battleground: “the enemies who rise up in our conscience against his Kingdom and hinder his decrees prove that God’s throne is not firmly established therein.”   The dictate of conscience is based on a number of factors: for Christians, on the Word of God, yes – but also on reason, experience and the culture and communities within which we live.

Thus conclusions reached according to conscience can be diametrically different. Those who are willing to carry out abortions would often appeal to their consciences in so doing, taking into account their duty as medical professionals and their responsibilities to their patients. Others will not carry out abortions, citing conscientious objection as sufficient ground for refusal.

Similarly, in relation to PLF, radically different conclusions are supported by appeals to conscience. Many who have or who would wish to offer prayers of blessing for same sex couples would be clear that they are acting in accordance with their conscience. My own reading of scripture, reason and tradition, as well as experience, leads me to the clear conclusion that I would be acting against my conscience in refusing to seek God’s blessing on a same-sex relationship.  Others, notably conservative evangelicals, appeal to conscience in rejecting PLF, reading the same scriptures I read but drawing very different conclusions.

Conscience can also confuse. Huckleberry Finn famously feels that he has acted against his conscience when he helps slave Jim to escape from his aunt:

The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last … it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven.

The appeal to conscience by conservatives seems to me in any event to be a distraction from the core discussion, for at no point during the entire LLF process has any suggestion been made that anyone opposed would be required to offer prayers of blessing. Nor has any suggestion been made that their position in the Church of England would be in any way compromised by a refusal to offer PLF.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, though. It is very possible to imagine a situation where a priest and a PCC may wish to offer Prayers of Love and Faith within a Diocese or Area where the bishop is opposed. What then? Do we need safeguards in place to ensure that the freedom of conscience exercised by a progressive priest does not undermine their place in the Church of England? Alternative episcopal oversight?

This from Alberto Giubilini:

Far from being a conversation-stopper, conscience can only find its proper place in philosophical and in public discussion if its philosophical and psychological aspects are teased out, defined and assessed. Appeals to conscience can only be part of philosophical, political, and legal discussion if they are seen as the start, not the end of discussions.

As we move forward in the conversations about pastoral reassurance, perhaps an initial step will be to note that conscience is not, of itself, an arbiter of right thinking. The Living in Love and Faith process has, over six years, carefully unpicked the theological, scriptural, experiential and historical complexities of human relationships, sexuality and God’s love.

It’s quite clear that it is not going to be easy to square the circle, but I hope that we can recognise that the appeal to conscience is no less straightforward than anything else in this process.

 

 

 

Comments

10 responses to “Freedom of Conscience: Sauce for the Gander?”

  1. Graham Holmes avatar
    Graham Holmes

    My comment yesterday on the Church Times FB post announcing the 3 Working Parties:
    What “Pastoral Reassurance” is being offered to the more than 1,100 priests who have indicated that they will happily perform marriage services for same sex couples as soon as it is legal to do so?

    1. David Runcorn avatar

      The pastoral reassurance is for folk on all sides of this.

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        David,

        The “threat” to freedom of conscience is a paper tiger. Clergy can never be compelled to do something they believe is wrong.

        Bishops, archdeacons and the occasional church warden certainly push clergy around – and sometimes worse. That is not going to change for anybody anytime soon.

        There is an elaborate and confected conversation being prepared on the subject of “conscience”. It will conclude with a “comprehensive package” which will demonstrate the diligence and care of the bishops. It is a performance.

        The substantive issue is differentiation. That will not happen unless a majority of progressives decide that a general settlement provides them with something worthwhile which will otherwise not be available.

        There is almost no evidence that progressives see any advantage or value in a general settlement.

        That is the reality.

  2. MariHoward avatar

    ‘Three working parties…’ – how much more bureaucracy must be added to the Church of England, yet nothing is decided? Who qualifies, how and why? These are not personal questions, but an expression of the frustration of many ordinary member ‘in the pews’ at the ‘mighty tortoise’ in dealing with all these questions arising from the present social mores and dominantly secular culture of our times. Compensation for the abused is another long drawn out discussion for layers of safeguarding administrators… I suppose all those councils held by the ‘early church’ were similar??

  3. Tim avatar

    Over 20 years ago a friend based in England asked me “is it possible to be gay and a Christian?”. To which I replied, after a second’s thought, “I don’t see why not”.

    The longer the CoE continues faffing around spawning committees instead of accepting all God’s people, the less church it witnesses.

  4. Peter avatar
    Peter

    Giles,

    The “conscience” vocabulary is an invention of the bishops intended to frame the discussion in a way that helps the bishops.

    Conservatives want differentiation which is quite different from freedom of conscience.

    I realise you will be equally (or more) unhappy with differentiation as a claim but that is at least an accurate description of the position

    1. David Runcorn avatar

      Not all actually. Peter, here and elsewhere you continue to claim clarity and certainty about these issues that you cannot possibly have. Even I don’t and I am in the room discussing this stuff. I hear very clearly how much this concerns you. It concerns me and others deeply too. Let’s pray for each other.

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        I am not claiming anything. Public statements are on record. I am doing neither more or less than just reading them. Visit the CEEC website. It’s there in plain English.

        My comment about the bishops is also no more than a statement of fact. They have worded the recent statements on their working groups. Again in plain English.

        David, we have had years and years of this. The laity are entitled to say enough is enough.

  5. Christopher Shell avatar
    Christopher Shell

    THe premise is that people agree with the principle of acting according to conscience. But I don’t agree with it at all, and there seem rational reasons not to.
    (1) People could lie about what their conscience said;
    (2) It could be an uninformed conscience;
    (3) Their ‘conscience’ could mirror their desires suspiciously often;
    (4) Their conscience could just be the same thing as their upbringing;
    (5) It puts people with and without consciences (or with different amounts of conscience) on a level with each other;
    (6) The little voice in your head might or might not be a conscience. There is no way of verifying or falsifying that, which makes appeal to conscience useless.

    1. Christopher Shell avatar
      Christopher Shell

      Also conscience is more to do with feelings, whereas evidence is clearly more important than feelings yet is not being mentionet at all.

Any thoughts?