CATEGORIES OF CONSCIENCE WITH EXAMPLES

1. Categories of Conscience (Salibay 2013)

a. Certain Conscience - When without any prudent fear, it decides that an act is either lawful or
unlawful. The person has no doubt in his/her judgment
1) Correct or True Conscience - It conforms to what is objectively right. The judgment of the
mind when it concludes correctly from true principles that some act is lawful or sinful.
i. Example: A learner saw that a college student has left her Cherry Mobile in the
cafeteria. He ran after the girl to give the phone to her.
2) Erroneous Conscience - The conscience errs because of falls principles or incorrect
reasoning or ignorance.
a) Lax Conscience - With insufficient grounds, conscience is inclined to judge
a thing to be truthful when in fact sinful; allowable when objectively it is not.
Considers something to be a light sin when actually it is a grave one. Need to
reform state of mind; considered erroneous. Pharisaical and Compensatory
i. A doctor reveals a very serious professional secret to lay people and
considers the disclosure mere small talk.
ii. A young popular teacher wants to be close with his/her learners, so he
decided to go out with them. They went to a bar and drink themselves to
death.
b) Scrupulous - It is in constant dread of sin where there is none, or of grave
sin when there is only venial sin. Strict
i. Example: A small girl went to the priest and asked him to forgive her
because she reads Harry Potter books. She felt guilty because they are
books of witchcraft and wizardry which is really bad. She can’t help but
read the content of the book.
b. Doubtful Conscience - A person could not pass moral judgment or unsure of one’s moral
judgment. It is uncertain concerning the morality of an action; therefore, it suspends its
judgments; or it passes judgments but with reasonable fear of erring; One may never act in
practical doubt on the lawfulness of an action; act can be postponed there is certainty.
i. Example: Before submitting the grades to the registrar miss Magis noticed that
one learner failed the midterm grading period. She felt pity. She wanted to pass
the learner but the learner did not pass the PT and exams. She was perplexed.
ii.

2. Erroneous Conscience- When the moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous
judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. (Salibay 2013)
a. The error may be due to vincible ignorance. This is the case when a person “takes little trouble to
find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degree almost blinded through the habit
of committing sin.” In such cases, one is culpable for the evil one commits.
EXAMPLE OF A VINCIBLE IGNORANCE:
i. A nurse who is taking care of a terminally ill patient accidentally injected a potassium
chloride instead of a pain-reliever.
ii. A Cebuano visited Davao for the first time, unaware of the laws he smoked in one of the
bars in Davao
b. The error may also be due to invincible ignorance. The moral subject here is not responsible for
erroneous judgment, so the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed on him or her. It is
still an evil, a privation, a disorder so one must therefore work to correct the error.
i. A nurse who is taking care of a terminally ill patient accidentally injected a potassium
chloride instead of a pain-reliever because the label of the vial is incorrect. *** HERE the
error committed is not anymore due to the nurse’s recklessness but to the manufacturer.

References
Bretzke, James SJ. 2004. A Morally Complex World: Engaging in a Morally Complex World. Collegeville, Minnesota:
1

Liturgical Press.
Page

1997. Catechism for Filipino Catholics. Manila: ECCCE.

Gert, Bernard. 2011. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 14. Accessed July 09, 2018.
Gil, Robin. 2006. A Textbook of Christian Ethics. New York: T&T Clark.
Glaser, John. 1971. "Conscience and Superego: A Key Distinction." Theological Studies 30-47.
Gula, Richard M. 1989. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Moralit. New York: Paulist Press.
Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sara B. Oswalt. 2014. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Burlington,
Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Keenan, James. 1994. "Christian Perspectives on the Human Body." Theological Studies 300-346.
Keenan, James F. SJ. 2004. Moral Wisdom: Lessons and Text from the Catholic Tradition. Quezon: Claretian Publications.
Kevin O'Neil, Peter Black. 2006. The Essential Moral Handbook: A Guide to Catholic Living. Missouri: Ligouri Publications.
Salibay, Esteban Jr. T. 2013. Christian Morality in Contemporary Society. Quezon City: C & E Publishing Inc.
Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker. 1979. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2
Page
 INTRISICALLY EVIL ACTS
Veritatis Splendor#80

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to
God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.
These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece
malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from
the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.
Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially
by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of
circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object."

I. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of
examples of such acts:

a. Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia
and voluntary suicide;
b. Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental
torture and attempts to coerce the spirit;
c. Whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary
imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children;
d. Degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free
responsible persons.

All these and the like area disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization, they contaminate those
who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the
Creator.

II. The Church teaches that there are certain actions which are evil regardless of intention or circumstance:
• These are what the Church calls intrinsically evil acts.
a. It means that the object of such an act as always and universally wrong, regardless of
circumstances and intentions (which means intention and circumstances cannot change the object
from evil to good).
b. These are acts that the Church considers to be so seriously disordered and harmful that they
should never be directly intended.
c. The gravity of the act and the subjective culpability of the doer of the intrinsically evil act may
be diminished by circumstances and intention but the whole action will still remain evil.

Several moral theologians have objections about the use of the concept of intrinsic evil. These theologians
believe intention and circumstance do not just diminish or increase the seriousness of an evil action, but they
can alter the meaning of the action to make it morally allowable. Who is correct? Both are correct.

One root of the controversy over intrinsic evil is the meaning of "intention" and "circumstances" as used by the
magisterium and by the above theologians.

• There are two sets of intentions and circumstances present in an act:

a. The immediate intention and the defining circumstances, which are parts of the object.
b. The end and the qualifying circumstances of the act that can vary the goodness or evil of the act.

• In saying that intrinsically evil actions are evil by their object regardless of intention and circumstances:
a. the "intention" that the magisterium is referring to is the end.
b. the "circumstances" referred to are the incidental circumstances.

That is why the magisterium insists that ends can never justify the means.
The gravity of the evil action may be lessened by a good end or purpose, but it cannot be made into a good
action if the object of the action is already evil.
a. E.g., to torture a terrorist in order to obtain information to prevent an impending terrorist attack
and save lives.
b. — Although the end of saving innocent lives is a good end, it does not make the act of the
physical and psychological torture of a human being into a good act, even if such an act can
3

save many lives.

Page
 c. Torture, regardless of the end of the agent, is still regarded as a violation of human rights of the
tortured person and an evil action.
d. Even if the eventual result of the torture of this particular person resulted in saving lives, it does
not make the practice of torture an act that is morally neutral or good.

• When theologians say that intention and circumstances can alter the meaning of an action, the "intention"
they are speaking of is the immediate intention and the "circumstances" are the defining circumstances that
shape the object of the action and gives the action its identity.
a. E.g., a direct abortion is different from an indirect abortion. A direct abortion is an intrinsic evil
because the death of the embryo or fetus it was directly intended while an indirect abortion is
not an intrinsic evil because, though it is foreseen, the death of the embryo or fetus was not
directly intended (e.g. an indirect abortion resulting from the removal of a life-threatening
cancerous uterus).
b. The different moral evaluation of a direct and indirect abortion shows the significance of
"intention" (in the sense of the immediate reason for the action) in determining the specie of
abortion involved. E.g., an abortion procured freely is morally different from an abortion
procured in the presence of coercion.
c. The death of the fetus remains objectively evil, but the person coerced to have an abortion did
not commit a grave act of direct abortion but can be said to have suffered a form of assault.
d. While the person who exerted the coercion so that the abortion may be procured is guilty of
direct abortion.

• The more precise an intrinsically evil act is described, the better one can understand why these actions
can never be justified (e.g. torture, direct abortion, genocide, rape, prostitution, slavery, child abuse,
child pornography).
• The Church is understandably concerned that persons should not make the mistake of thinking that
good intentions (the end of the agent) can justify any action and that ends can justify the means.
However, the Church is being reminded by theologians not to minimize the significance of intentions
(the immediate intention) and circumstances in the evaluation of moral acts. The fact that the Church
recognizes exceptions to its own moral teachings on birth control is evidence that, aside from the object
of the action, circumstances and intentions are crucial in determining the over-all morality of an action.
• The concept of intrinsic evil should not be used loosely. Careful delineation of the relevant intentions
(immediate and long-tens) and circumstances must be spelled out before a concrete moral action is
declared an intrinsically evil act.

VIRTUE ETHICS
Morality for Daily Life

There are two general types of ethics in moral theology: virtue ethics and dilemma ethics.
1. Virtue ethics is for the ordinary times of our lives when we face daily decisions of doing good and
avoiding evil.
2. Dilemma ethics is for the extraordinary times when we face major moral dilemmas that involve conflict of
values.

I. What is Virtue Ethics?

• Virtue ethics is concerned about how people form their character through their choices and action in
every day. Virtue ethics sees the ordinary life as the place where most of moral life takes place.
• The task of being moral is to grow into perfection by imitating Christ. We do this by growing in the
virtues (developing and regularly practicing good habits) and avoiding vices (turning away from bad
habits).

II. Virtue and vices are habits or dispositions:

• They are patterns of deciding and acting that can draw us toward goodness or evil. When we develop
and maintain good habits/virtues we get used to doing good, and thus choosing and doing the good
would become easier and easier for us.
• Virtue ethics is a goal-oriented ethics. Virtue ethics urges us to strive to live morally in order to be more
like Christ every day and grow in our union with God.
• The virtues are the means we use to achieve this goal of perfection and union with God.
4
Page
III. Applying Virtue Ethics:
• We ask ourselves three basic questions:
• What kind of person am I?
• What kind of person do I want to become?
• How do I achieve this goal?
• What kind of person am I?

• The question can be refined to “how virtuous am I? Aristotle suggests that we can know how virtuous
we are by considering how we act in spontaneous situations: we reveal ourselves when we act in the
unplanned world of ordinary life.
• The cardinal virtues can serve are standards to measure how virtuous we are in everyday situations.
We seek a kind of self-knowledge that is honest and critical what kind of person do I want to become?
• If we are honest with the first question, we will come to realize that we have vices and there are virtues
which we have not fully acquired. We realize that we need to grow more in these virtues.
• We use the cardinal virtues to set personal goals for ourselves. We try to envision the kind of virtuous
person we want to become Role models, heroes, saint, significant persons in our lives can help us form
our vision of what kind of person we would strive to become. How do I achieve this goal?
• To become the person we want to become, we need prudence. To be a prudent person is to be a person
who is realistic and practical, attentive to details of the moral life, able to anticipate difficulties, and able
to choose and measure actions rightly. Finding prudence is finding the middle point (the golden mean)
and acting in moderation. It is about being able to find the appropriate response to situations that
avoids doing too much or too little. Finding the mean in every situation is a challenge because the
mean is not fixed and can vary according each person’s capacities. Prudence will enable the person to
make right choice to exercise the other virtue in moderate ways in order to form a more virtuous
character

5
Page