As in all similar contests, the upcoming U.S. election calls Christians to form their moral consciences according to the whole of Christian truth, and then to apply that formation to the deliberate decisions they make in the voting booth.
A pivotal scene in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons has this exchange between Sir Thomas More (the principal subject of the bio-drama) and Thomas Howard (the Duke of Norfolk and Sir Thomas’ dear old friend) over the 1534 Act of Succession:
Norfolk: Oh, confound all this. I’m not a scholar, as Master Cromwell never tires of pointing out, and frankly I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names. You know those men! Can’t you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
More: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
More had been summoned to the Tower of London for interrogation by Thomas Cromwell, King Henry VIII’s principal secretary. Cromwell and Norfolk tried to persuade More to take the mandated oath of assent to the Act, which vested the succession of the English crown in the children of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Refusal to swear the oath was a punishable offense, and denial of its purports was an act of high treason punishable by death.
Norfolk, a political pragmatist and sympathetic to More, was vexed by his friend’s stand on conscience. While More’s theology of conscience is open to a range of interpretations, this interchange is faithful to what we know about the spirit of More’s reasoning. And it displays the tension between the formation and application of conscience, on the one hand, with citizenship and political responsibility on the other.
Bolt’s More implicitly articulates the account of obedience to erring conscience from St. Thomas Aquinas. In Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 19, Art. 5, Aquinas answer affirmatively the question, “Is the will evil if it wills contrary to erroneous reason?” Because conscience is the application of one’s moral knowledge to actions, to act against conscience is evil, even if one’s moral knowledge is mistaken—that is, if one wills to act contrary to reason. St. Thomas does not vest conscience with the sovereign power to determine good and evil — those determinations are in the order of creation, made according to God’s own determinations in a manner perfectly consonant with His nature — and prior to acting, one has an obligation to form one’s conscience according to the truth (with the Christian enjoined to the fullness of supernatural revelation).
If, in the disciplined and good-faith effort to do that, one determines against the truth, one errs—“sins” in the Christian tradition—if one disobeys that erroneous determination. Why? Because to do to so is to will against what conscience has determined to be the proper course. To will against what conscience tells me is obligatory is to will for evil. Thus, it is evil to will against erroneous conscience.
This dual obligation to form and to follow conscience illustrates the inherent tension for the faithful Christian when she participates in civic and political life.
It is mere Christian duty—rooted in the doctrine of solidarity—to contribute to the common good of society. While this implies political activity and responsibility—for example, voting—the obligation is rooted a broader soil of civic friendship. Political activity is a subsidiary obligation of civic duty, not its primary expression. It implies the moral responsibility of the Christian to form his conscience and the political freedom to exercise it.
Here is the rub.
Two people exercising the same moral responsibility may arrive at different conclusions regarding the right choice in an election. If a citizen forms his political conscience by dutifully and seriously considering the full range of candidates, policies, and implications of voting one way or the other, he must apply that conscience as faithfully as he can. And it is possible and reasonable for two people to arrive at different conclusions, both acting in good faith and both taking seriously the moral obligations to form and apply moral conscience.
Following the exchange between Norfolk and More cited above, Cromwell asks More, “So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas?” To which More responds, “I don’t know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man’s conscience. I condemn no one.”
We do well to emulate both aspects of More’s approach.
First, we affirm the duty to form and apply conscience with the utmost gravity, come what may. Second, we must exercise the humility that comes with recognizing people of good will might arrive at a different conclusion. This does not preclude attempts to persuade the other. Failing that, none of us has a window to look into another voter’s conscience, none of us may condemn the other for that decision. None of us has a window on a fellow’s soul.
Kenneth Craycraft is a licensed attorney and the James J. Gardner Family Chair of Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary and School of Theology, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. He holds the Ph.D. in theology from Boston College, and the J.D. from Duke University School of Law.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.