The position of St. Thomas is, in fact, well known: He is so consistent in his respect for conscience that he maintains that it is wrong for one to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced, however, absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act (cf. Summa Theologiae 1-2.19.5). If man is admonished by his conscience– even if an erroneous conscience, but one whose voice appears to him as unquestionably true—he must always listen to it. What is not permissible is that he culpably indulge in error without trying to reach the truth.
John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope
Well, not well known to me until recently, but my research stops mid-twelfth century and isn’t focused on moral theology. The obvious danger in a Christian context, of course, is allowing the demands of conscience without slipping into relativism– or so it seems.
There’s a lot of talking about conscience these days, but reading Josef Pieper has made me aware of how little we talk about Prudence, and my (very casually reading) sense is that many of the ways we talk about conscience are examples of trying to make “conscience” stand in for “prudence,” but this is not a coherent argument as much as a niggling suspicion in the back of my mind.
