Tk Formation of Corcicncc t37
nyfsra.lgfrtl cat]-s it_'iuridical ethirs.a A primc exarnple of this point of
heFormationof
Conscience
I and we oversimplify both.
.fn rbe moral education of aduhs, the pastoral prioriry is to enable
people to make their own moral decisions in light of the guidance of scriprure
and drc teaching ofthe church. This means not so much providing answers to
nioral questions as encouraging the process of arriving at a moial decision.
This brings us squarely into the domain of the formation of conscience.
The Range of Interest in
Forming Conscience
Often, discussions ibout the formation of conscience are preoccupied
.What ought
with_ answering the practical moral quesdon, I m do!" The
emphasis then is necessarily placed on what we need in order to make a
panicular moral choice (consciencty'3). However, when the right ,.choice"
becomes of primary interest, the formation of conrcience becomJs a matter of
acquiring the Decessery skills for making right judgments. These are such
skills as the ability to assess morally relwant lactorsJuch as the action itself,
rot€nuon,.cucumsmnces, consequeoces, values, and norms; the ability to
consider all sides of an issue; the ability to provide sound reasons for a moral
iudgment; and the_ a_bllity to have a deiisive wilt ro execute a iudgmeau This
is rhe process o-f
lelberation proper to conscience/2. Certainly,-the natural
law radition of Catholic moral theology encourages this kind of thinking.
According to the nrtural law traditioo,-io be mora-i is to be reasonable. Tf,e
.Catholic radition of natural law has been very optimistic
about reason and
has placed a premium in the.moral life on ieveloping the capacities for
exercising reason righdy.
Our approaches ro moral educatiol and the rnoral development of con_
-
science in recent years heve been dominated by sudr a point ;f view.
Craig
lt6
view, with its implicetions for mol'al education and the development of thc
moral coascienc, cln be found in the theories of Lrwrence Koblberg. Ac_
ording to his theories, the rnorel life is primarily a nrner of meking df,oices
on the basis of rcason. Ivloral development is e matter of ecquiring the ability
to provide increasingly more principled reesons ro iustifi thjsc choiceJ.
. . One of the dangers of this approach is that it cgn too €esily split the
intinate connection between religion end morality iu our lives. Riligious
bcliefs, forexample, too easily become disperrsable baggage in tlie m.oral life,
since rnoral choices can be defended on grounds other tlpn religious ones.
Another danger with KoNberg,s approach is that, if we limit the f6rmation of
conscience to.the dev€loF ent of moral reasoning for making a decision, we
severely restrict what is involved in morality and in the Christian conscience,
While making a reasoned choice is indeed an important interest in the
moral life, it is not the whole of morality. We hrve already, seen in ttIe first
chapter that the_twofold range of iaterest of moral theology includes not only
meking moral decisions but also forming morel character. The interest in
9hlacte1 agpealed again under the considerations for determining sin. There I
indicated that determining sin is not a matter of examinirg isolated actions
against a set of moral rules, but involves discerning the orientation and commit-
ment of the person. We en expect, therefore, that the forrnation of cu$cience
will involve more dran sinply ens[€ring the prectical moral question, ..What
ought I to do?" It must also address the prior moral questim, ..Wh.t sorr of
person ought I to become?" This means the aim of the formation ofconscience
is not simply to increase : person's knowledge of facts and values, or skills for
resolving a moral dilemma. It must also include the fuller tfrcure of the per-
son's moral character. As long as we can remember that moraliry is interested
in ubowe an, as well as in oicl and b,u we cboou, thurwewill not eliminate
character from our considecation oftlre formation ofconscience.
Conscience is pmperly forrned in didogue with several sources of moral
wisdom. As Dzzazs we cmsult our own experience as well as the experience
of family, friends, colleagues, aod expens in rhe field which p€rtai;s to the
area of iudgment at hand. We enalyze and test the stories, images, language,
ritua!, an! actions by wliich the various communities in whiitr we irtici-
pa.te live the moral life. As Cbistians we turn to tlre testimony of scripture,
. tlre religious convictions of our creeds, the lives of moral vinuosos, and the
info-rmed iudgment of ttmlogians past and present who help interpret the
traditions of Christianlife Cbistiaa cormulzirier have access toa rich Leritage
of-stories, images, language, rituals, devotional practices, and spiritual disci-
pliires which nurtur€ on€b moral vision and practice. Thse cornmunities
 l Srl Rcam Inforncd fu Faitb
have dso ofhcial steteurents of morel teaching from its leeders to give guid-
rnce in rreas of specific moral concern. As Cabolia we py attention o our
rich beritage of storics, images, and prackcs as well rs o drc official tcxch-
ings of the magisterium vhich arc pertinent to our rrcas of encem.
- Thc gopee formetion of conscience uscs dcsc sources of monl wisdorr
to inform thc four poins ofinorel andjisis which we took from Jernes Gusaf-
son and inroduced in Chepter I under thc coraidcrrtion of dr prectical level
ofmonl theology. Thoce four points arq the rgent; beliefs; situationel analy-
sis; erd rmnl norms. A.lthough all work together in the formrtion and func-
tioning of conscience, for purposes of analysis here we will correlate what
pertains to the agent and beliefs with conscience and chrncter, and corrclatc
wh*t penains to situational analysis and moral norms with conscicnce and
decision making.
C.onscience and Character
Pelhaps the most serious danger in,concentrating merely on choosing
and acqrririag rnore priocipled rcasons for the choices we make is that we fail
to deal sd€quately with dre formation of cbarutet Attention to character hrs
been the sorely neglected side of the formation of conscience. Some theolo-
gians today ,re encouraging greater attention to charader as the more impor-
trnt sidc of tbe moral life.z These theologians are saying that who we are
matters mordly. If a iudgment of conscience is to be a response from the
hean, then much depends on character, or virtuc, We need to explore the
moral import of .who we rre" and to give full weight to all the facmrs which
influence the formation of character.
Moral choices are not made in a vacuum. They are made by people who
see the world in a certain way because rhey have become particular sons of
people. The very way we describe a situation and the kinds of choices we
make follow from the kind of character we have. Character gives rise to
choice. Choices in turu confirm or qualify character, for choices rrc self-
determining, In choosing to adopt one or another course of action, we rnake
ourselves into stain sorts of persons. Heroes, heroines, and saints illusrrrte
this mosi vividly when they rdfusc to compromise on matters which seem to
others oflitde precticzl imporance. Once again, Thonus More porurys this
well in Robert Bolt's dnma. The following scene takes place in dre ieil bell
whea Thomas More's deughter, Mergaret, cornes to pusurde him to swear to
the Act of Succesion:
MC)RE: You want ms to swear to the Act of Succession?
MARGARET: 'God more rcgands the thougha of the hcert then
the words of tbe mouth. " Or so you've always told me.
Tb Fonuthn of Cotrcicncc I 19
MORE Ycs.
MARGARET: Thcn sey tlrc wcds of the oath rnd in your heart
think otherwise.
MORE: What is gn oadr then but words we ssy to fu?
MARGARET: Thet's very neat.
MORE Do you mean, it isn't rrue?
MARGARET: No, it's true.
MORE: Then it's a poor argument to call it "neat," Meg. When a
man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own
ha s) Ardrf he opens his fingers
hands. Like water. (Ilc cup bb
rlar---he needn't hope to 6nd himself again. Some men aren't
capable of this, but I'd be loath to think your father one of
them,t
This scene emphasizes that any choice which rcally involves free self-
determination includes one's whole self with it. Thomas More shows that
wben we do not act according to our character, our very self cln be lost,
Mrd choices are fundementally matters of intcgrity: we ect in character or
out of character.
What is this "character" which is so imporunt in the moral life? Wheo
we 'size people up" to gpt a glimpse of their character, what do we attend to?
We p4y attention to pettems of actions which reflect anitudes, dispositions,
the readiaess m lmk on things in certain ways and m choose in cenain ways.
These are indices of charactcr, sincr character shows itself in its fruits.
Cherecter itentifies 6e responsive orienution of e pcrson: secing the world
as a hostile of friendly plrce, or being a person who loves rnd helps or one
who is fearfrrl end sel6sh.
We acquire charactci by directing our freedon to loyalties outside our-
sdves. Christirn cherecet,, for eremple, is foimcd by directing our freedom
'to thc p€rson and message of Jesus as the ultimate center of our loyalty.
Cherecter is whrt rcults from the vdues we mekc our own. Wheo a vdue has
woven its way into the fabric of our being, we dclight in doing what pertains
to Szt veluc. The iust person "iusticcs" and the loving person loves with such
€sse that wc say such actions are "second nature" to these pmple. Character
predispo,ses us to choose in cemin ways, even tbough it does not predeter-
rnine cvery droice. We can ect against chrracter, and by meking new choices
we en chrnge our cherecrer.
 140 Reaor @onud 81 Faitb
Connimce, Cbtrmter, aid Vbiol
Visior end cboia arc t:vto key concepts which perain to conscicncc and
charecter. Clearly, vision is prior to choice in the moral life. After all, we
drcose what we do on tlrc basis of whet we see, rnd we see whet we ser
because of who we art, our cherectcr. Think for a moEt€trt: Wbet really
makes us morally different? Is it the specific choices we meke? Meny of us
ma&c thc srme choiceer to pay tax€st to rtsist violence, to visit the sick. We
rre morally different because of the underlying vision which provides the
foundarion for attitudes aod choices.
Philosopher Iris Murdoch, who has contributed some foundetional ideas
to today's interest in vision and character, explains that we differ not because
we choose differently, but because we see differently:
When we apprehend and assess other people we do nor consider
only their solutions to specifiable practical problems, we corxider
something more elusive which may be called their total vision of
life, as shown in their mode of speech or silence, their choice of
words, their ass€ssmeots of others, their conccption of their own
lives, what they think attractive or praise-wonhy, what they think
funny: in shon, thc configurations of their thought which show
cootinudly in their reactions and conversation. These things,
which rnay be overdy and conprehensibly displayed or inwardly
elaborated and guessed at, constitute what, making different points
in the two metaphors, one may call the texture ofa man's being or
the nature ofhis personal vision.l
From this te can conclude that the first task of the formatioo of conscience is
the attempt to help us sec.
The modtil of responsibility for the moral life indicates that we respond
to what we see. Before we can answer the question, "What ought I to do?" we
need to ask, "What is going on?" This is the question ofvision. In fact, most
of what appears in our decisions and actions is the result of what we see going
on, rrther than the result of conrious rational choices. For example, if we
look on our children es a burden, we refrrse to carry them; if we look on our
colleagues as competitors, we refuse to cooperrte.with them.
.
, The "seeing" which is an expression ofour character is more than takiog
a look. Seeing is interpreting and valuing as well. What we regard as wonhy
of our response depends on how we "view" it. For example, "My wife is a
nag-," "My employer is bossy," 'My snrdents are eager'are ways of secing
which profoundly influence our choices. But these ways of seing heve notlr-
ing direcdy to do with the logical application of rules.''fhey havi to do with
Tk Fotmatior of Conscince t4l
thc imag$ through which we grasp what we see. What we sec sets the
diroction and limits of what we do; it generates certain choices nther tha[
other; and it disposes us to respond in one way rather than tnother. what is
t choice for sorneone else rnay nev€r occur to us rs a choicc at ell, for we
simply do not see the world that way.
Co*ciance, Visian, and Story
The imponance of vision and character for understanding thg moral
iudgments ofconrience cannot tre emphasized enough. Most people most of
the time do not make moral choices in the 6rst instance on rhe basis of
impersonal rules, rational absuactions, or logical procedures. Many of our
moral decisions do not call for rhe leisure ro sit down and ponder the rational
dimensions, general principles, and logical procedures which go into every
choice. More often than not, the analysis which discovers such dimensions
and pr<rcedures comes after the fact of the decision, The real u,orld of our
moral choices includes imagination, vision, habits, affections, disposirions,
somatic reactions, and countless non-rational factors which logical generaliza-
tions never account for in the immediate moment of making a decision. We
make our decisions more out of the beliefs we live by and the habits we have
formed than out of the principles we have leamed. Linus is a prime example
of this in his response to Lucy in this excerpt ftom a Pearuts comic strip
which has Linus preparing a snowball to toss at Lucy:
LUCY: "Life is full of cboices.
You may choose, ifyou wish,
not to throw that snowball at me.
Now, if you choose to throw that sno$,ball at me
I will pound you right into the ground.
If you choose nct to throw that snowball at me,
your head will be spared. "
LINUS: (Ihrowing the snowball to the ground)
"Ufe is full ofchoices,
but you nevef get any.'
This illustrates how much character (which includes the beliefs we live
by. as well as the hebi$ we have formed), rather thau rational principles,
determines a decision or even -whether a decision should be made at all. In
this case, Linus' fear of Lucy, his belief thrt she will do what she says and his
habitual experience of her habitual way of responding, makes up his mind for
him, so to speak. Given what he sees and belicves, he has no need to ponder
any further.
142 Rcosu Inlonud 81 Faitb
hoperly m understend rnonl bclnvior, than, we n€€d to Pay ettention
fust to tlie inmges shaping tbe imaginetion, tnd fie stori€s givitrg risc to thqse
imrges, beforc we osidcr rnord rules. We live rnorc by smries thau rre do
by rules. Alt of this tdls us thet learning moral rul€s is not the 6rst tesk in dre
formetion ofeonsciencc. We fust need to learn lora to see.
To r grcat atent, our vision is not somethiog we provide for ctrselves
by orrselves. A morel vision is not so much cbeen es it is bhcrited ftom our
social worlds. Vision i! r community achicvement. Social scientists tell us
thrt as we grow, the visbn we rquire is in pert the result of intcmalizing the
bcliefs rod values, causes and loyrltics of the community which meLe up our
environment. Our vision is almoet wholly dePerrdent on our relationships, on
the worlds in which wc live, and on the commitments we have made. As a
result, the morality into which we are socielized is not a set of rules trut a
collection ofstories and images of what makes life wonh living.
James Gustafson cites a personal experience which illustrates well how
his participation in a religious family and a church community which lived by
the religious belief "God is love" shaped tris character and vision. He says
that the church building of his childhood had across its front a painting of the
Gethsemanc scene, rnd abovc it was printed, "fu is love," The iuxtaposi-
tion of the anguish and suffering of Gethsernane with the affirmation "God is
lovc" mede an indelible impression oo him. This visual image, togedrer with
exposure to prerching or I John 4 by his pastor (who also happened to be his
fathcr), as well as the experience of human relationships in which the affirma-
tion of God's love was embodied, came together to shape his character and his
awareness of beiog loved by God even in moments of his spiritual suffcring of
uncertainty and doubt-t Gustafson's exp€ri€ncc shows how both the histori-
cal experience of the cocrmunity of the church which gave formal cxpression
to the conviction'God is love," and his lived personal exFrience of human
relationships which effrmed that conviction, entered into the formation of
his awareness rnd helped sustain him even when circumstances might hrve
led him to obicct to such a conviction.
. Yet the world of family and church are not thc only worlds we live in.
Religious ttlicfs and stories are not tre only ones shrping our lives. Each of
us irihebits many overlapping worlds at the seme time. The forriration of
conscience takcs place.in these coomunities so that one's consciencc reflects
iri many wrys 6e velues end loyalties of dre mom influentiil cornmunities.
Fbr example, why do parents worry about where dreir children go to school,
about the frieuds they mrke, about what thcy do in their free time, about the
television shows tbey watch? They worry because the inner spirit, or the
conscience, is shaped rnd devel,opcd by the strircnrres within which we live,
by whrt we see, end by what w'e do- To speak only moral rules to our
children and to expect that this will make them vinu<ius is to miss the mark of
Tfu Fonaatiot, 4 Costciac. 143
forming conscience. We must rlso pey rttention to their schools, their
fricods, the books thcy rced, thc telsvision progrrms rhey watch, and so on.
If me is decply involvcd in the Clrisrian cornnuaity, its beliefs and
*ories will highly inf,ucace onc's moral conscience. From the perspective of
"rcason informd by feith," Christien bcliefs havc e great deel to do with
shaping whet we sec.. But intense com;nition exi*s berveen the Gristien
community and thc many chers whidr vie for our rnentinn. Eech of these
communities cornlites for our loyalty but often with contradicory bcliefs,
imrges, and norms-
In rddition to fimily aod church, we rlso live in the.worlds ofour ethaic
community, school, profession, spons, politics, coIumerce, advenising, and
entertainment, to name r few. To become aware of the strong impact these
rvorlds havc on us, try this little exercise, Place yourself in the center of a
series of conccntric circles.
In each cirde, beginning with the one nearest you, place the neme of the
world which you think hzs had the greatest influence on sheping your char-
acter and vision. Neme sorire of the concrete particulars of these worlds
which heve had a sigpificant. influence on you. To extend this exercise,
errange the worlds in the order of their greatest influeoac on your pries€nt
attitudes towerd dresc moral issues: divorce, honroscrudity, pre-marital sex,
the egs race, the usc of drugs, euthanasia, and a moral issue of your choice.
Do the worlds of fmily and church come cloae to you in each instance? An
exercise like this uuy not help us become totally corsciors of our vision, but
it at least helps us to see the weys our visiou is sheped by panicipating in
communities.
Each world we enter makes demands on our loyalty and is alive with
 Rcaon hlormcd By Faitb Formatbn of Conscierce
Tbe 145

meny forms of communicetiog that loydty. Rules and regulations try to do

rnd need loving. These programs rensmit many inrages of wtat makes life
it, but sories, images, rioels do it better. Thmugh these laner means, we worthwhile which stand in direct conflict with thc imiges of the gospel and
come to se€ what life ceotered rround the mnvictions of these comnunities is
rob religious stories and images of their power to move people.e
ebout, 8nd how life is m be lived. The more we panicipate in the stories, In addition to the television prograrns themselves, consider how mrny of
rituals, images, and languqe of c cocrmunity whicir has i gret influence on
our pref€renc€s rnd ways ofevalurting whet is worthwhile in pcrsons and in
us, thc more we begin to rle on is way ofseeing.
life ere shaped by thc powerful images cornmunicated thrmgh the clever
Trke the."community" or world ofcollege and professional football, for
world of edvertising. Recall the number of television commercids which tell
lanp!9.. The wcekly exposure to the apnual fell ritu:l of the quest to be us that enough is not enough,
qYou
need more . , .'; .,Get more out of life
"No. lI has an unmistakable impact on our imagioations. Without this fall by. . . ." The advertising world's pursuit of .more. communicates a visiori
riturl and image, as well es the stories which go with it, foorbell season would about life and how to live it meaningfully. We can soon take this vision of
be less exciting. But once we get immersed in the world of spons v.irh its
consumerism and use it to interpret the whole of our lives and our relation-
stories and images, we have a hard time seeing what is going on anywhere
ships. When we begin to look upon all our activities and p€ople rvith a sense
else.in any other way- For example, we may even 6nd ourselves ulking about
of insufficiency and know that whatever we have is not enough, the newest,
heving "togain yardage" oa a deal, or "to run interference" for a collcague, or
or the most improved, then we ha've been converted by rhe images of the
ito punC' in order to get out of a !am. We may even begin to approach all world of advertising. The rest ofour lives will soon tbllow in Lind.
forms of human interaction with the image of "No. 1." It tells ui someone
The stro.tg influence of the business world on moral vision end moral
must win and sommne must lose, When everyone is out to be victoriously
character was graphically bmught home to me while I was watching the
undefeated, aggressive coapetirioo, not ha;ony, reigns supreme. Whjn
Oregon Sllkespeare:n Festival's production of Arthur Mlllels Dcath of e
everyone is out to be "Nc. 1," then our lives become filied with compoition
Salsmm. This pby is a strong indictment of- socieqr for its frilure to provide
and colflict,- and our styles of interaction become .a mixture of aggr;ssively
its memte-rs with a wonhy vision of life. The vision which ultirnately de-
offersive and staunchly defeosive behavior.
stroys Willy l-oman is bom out of his belief in unrestrained individualism
.most|he
*iftri.y .pr1eoled by the entenainment communiry comperes and his worship of success. Willy could not male this vision oi life work. The
inrersely with the Christian communty,s. Willam F. Fore'j book,'Taie- competition of the business world, and the preszures of a success-oriented
visbtr ud Religion: Tbe Sbqbg { Feitb, Vatues, atd Cultan, rnaintains that
l'orld in which respect is earned by achievem€nt! eventually drives him mad-
television is usurping the rcle of the church in shaping the irnagination and
In a world which Imked upon love, acceptaoce, and respect as something to
our system ofvalues. He says,
be earned by achievement, failure was unbearable. The "successful" vision of
Willy Loman's world finally led him to suicide. Pan of his tragedy is that he
Television, rether than the churches, is becoming the place where had no other story to rcplace the vision his business world hed given him.
people 6nd a worldview which reflects what to them ij of ultimate
These examples of the religious world ofJames Gustafson rnd the non-
value, and which justifes their behavior and way of life.r
religious worlds of sports, television, advertising, and business give us a sense
of ways our vision-is shaped by the multiple worlds in which we live. Each
Few television viewers are so firm-ly established in their value commitmeots
world comrnuriicates what is "good" and how life ought to be lived. These
as to go unouched by the persistent promotion of the values and behavioral
examples show clearly that most of what wc see does not lie in front of our
patrcms-which television programs transmit. For example, consider the num_
eyes but behind them in the images which make up our imaginations. Images
ber of "farnily" programs which do not prize marital fidelity, or which por_
and the imagination, then, are extemely important for the moral life.
nay their central characters as single and free ro explore a wide rangl of
interpersonal dynamics, or whose humor is carried by sexual innuendo,
Telwision is a powerful source of influence on aftitudes ;nd behaviors il the Conriatce, I naginat in, and
arees ofliolence and sexualiiy.s For children, it is in cartoons.
For adults, it Cbristian Storizs
comes through situation omedies, soap operas, and policc dramas. Such
programs pottray violence rnd coercion ls natural pans of sexuality and
The-irnegination is r powerful moral resowce, not to bc equated with
tell mere fantasy or make-believe. As we sau' in Chapter 5 on the humrn person,
us that the young, the strotg, rnd ttre beautiful are the ones who irt sexual
the imagination is our capaciry to consftucr our worlds. By meanj of the
r46 Rcnn l{ornal By
im{inrtive proc6s' wc bring together divcrse exPcriencd into a mernilgfirl
*Ufi.. Wtt"it *. "gtt 6e picturi" we have comc to .a irmge which helps us
txlt all the divcrsc forts aietber so that we en undetstrnd whet is going on'
Human bchsviq is a function nd so much of
lnd so rchte to it eipropriitety.
-mc
holds a" true, but of the imegindon hdding *e
the rnmal propociti6ns
imaq€s which sive us r "dicture' of the wmld- ln forming our conscicnccs for
the irke of rna-king a moa pagm.nt, then, we need to be criticdly den to
imaces at Dlay h our imrginations.
-Our
ittitgi*tiont aetermlne whet we see and so influence -how we re-
spond. Every-teacher knows the powe6 of apt er<amples, and eviiry preacher
knows the effect ofa story well told. Frequently, our stud€nts or congregations
do not understrnd a simple point, not because they lack intelligence, trut
because their frame ofvision has them looking in the rvrong direction. A good
example, or a wdl-told story, allows the listener to suspcnd piior iudgment
aboui rhe nature of rcality rnd it frees one to let images play together in a new
way. Suddenly all is clear: "Oh, Iget the picture! I've iust nc ver seen itlike that
beiore!" From the Point of view of the imagination' moral cooversion is a
maft€r of repattcming the irnagination so rs to see dimensions of reality which
were not availaHe to us before. When we begin to see diffurendy' we will begin
toresponddiffeready. Thechallengetopa*ord miriistry is to feed theimegina-
tion with the Christirn smries and images throrgh which we can see the world
in depth and respond appmprietely.
Ctristian rmrAity tetieves that the stories and images which come to us
in the Christian sbry portray and describe goodness in the moral life, end
they provide nuthful wap of secing the world. Undoubtedly, these stories
and images will be in comPetition with otbers coming to us from the various
.worlds in which we live. Each world tries to tell us sornerhing about what is
good, and how life ought o be lived. The imponant questiorr before us, then'
is how decisive our Christian believing and beliefs ought to be for shaping our
moral awareness. As James Gusufson would have it, {ttreyl ought to be the
most decisive, most informing, most influ€ncing beliefs and expcriences in
the liv.es of people."ro However, how decisive they acnrally are will depend
on how deepll one has eppropriated thcm in becoming a Christian, The
incdrpontion of these smries i*o our own way oi seeing, fecling, thinking'
iudging, and acting will hetp us to engage the world as a people fornrd by
Christian fridr. Chaptet 4 showed that the distinctively Christian aslect of
mordity is very much a function of the images of faith shaping one's vision
and character. Chepters t2, 13, and 14 will treat more completely some ofthe
ways which scripturc, Jesus, and the church function in the moral life to
influencr moral character thmugh the images of the gmd life which they
pmvide.
Faitb Th Fomation {Cwciencc t47
' Conscience and Choice
Frorn visioo coqres choice. Wc respond to what we see. The r€sponse
we
nzke is sbuped, too, by the sort of pe*ons we-brve become. In Aa', Ling a
good-pcrson bes e grcater iofluence on the choiccs wc rnake tlun eny system
ofprinciples or rnethods ofmekiag e decision. Sinoe wc choose on th! brsis of
whrt we scc md who we arc, we nccd some wey to check our vision and
charactcr. As we-said.above, aF^p-,p"rly informed conscience sees.rightly.
Do we ryc whet is reelly there? Or do we see iust what we want to see? .io
answer these questions we need to have an accurate grasp of the situation
and
to make a proper use of moral norms.
A fundamental axiom of Catholic morality is that morality is based on
reality. Asking thc right questions to anal;.ze ttre situation is thJ*"y to
-oue
toward seeing realiry righdy. The- reality-rwealing quesrions of siruational
analysis can hclp us to test our Jision, character, and conscience. Daniel
Maguire offers several which we can use for this test. He asks: Whatl Who?
When? Why? Howl What if., What else?u We will examine these sirnple
questions briefly to see how they help us set our sights on what is real in our
human situations.
Wbcr is the human situation of this moral reality? lV6a may seem rco
large as e questim since it can srctch over all others. However, it ioes fix
our
aT:o:oD the primary d3g psychological,
:n _(physicd,
which we first meet our world. Good moral
systemic) through
iudgments are tlose which fir t-he
siruation as it really is. W6ar helps us to see what is really there. Wu,
Dresses
us to make diltinctions where there are true differences, Unless wc L the
differerces we will not respond to what is really there. Many, if not most,
ororal disagreernents result from the ignorance of what is rt y the case.
ll'hether wrr is iustffied, for exampte, depends on what war is, .rriat auclear
weepons do. ln medical rnaners, we need to know what chernotherapy
does,
what death is, whet abonions do. In sexual matters, we necd o knii
what
masturbation does,.what contraceptive pills do, what s€xual iotercourse is,
tbr-rverydey morality, we need to know what smoking das, what car
pooling does, what overworking and overeadng do.
-. Next is rpAo. We have alrcidy explored soirc of the olo dimension in our
discussion ofcherecter. Tbere we saw thrt character briogs iorpomrnt
tiorrs to bear oa our actions. For example, if I ern moie lik'e C,andhi
disposi-
than
Hider. thar rvill alter the redity ofany situation ofconflicq. Whethr i a-
authentic conscientious obFctor or a coward alters the reality of mv "n
draft
r€gistration. Whether I am a diabeiic or not affects the morality of my earing
habits. The ulo also includes thc other persons involved in tne aecisiin.
Ttre
moral reility ofsexual intercourse, for eiample, is different when my panner
rs my spouse or my neighbor.
 Rcaw Infond $ Faitb
Thc third rnd fourdr questions .re rrrrr rod ralar.'Driviog 55 mph has
diftrcnt monl meaning wheo it is donq in e school zone rt three o'clock then
whcn it is donc on Interstete 80. And wc ell lnrow thc differeacc betwcen
yclling "6re" o e rife nnge or in e cmwded movic dre{ter.
t
l d Hou rrednc next two questioos. llcy elso hrvc something to do
with charecter. Wly is the criticd qucstion of nptivrdon that sends us bcck to
cbrify our nelues. Whrt bots lilc love.t th€ taicl l n'cl mi[fit truly bc rnanipu-
lrdon rt dre oiyln el. For examph, why do I cale 6r my eiling pcrents? ls this
an exprcssion of love rnd sincer: crre on my parg or do I intcnd to guer4ntee a
substrntial crrt of the inheritance? Why do I give such large donations to St.
Jude's Hospiul? To pmmote the efforts of healdr care and rese*rch crrried on
there, or to qualify for a sizable tax deduction? "The last temptation is the
greatest treasoni to do the riht deed for the wrong reason," ts Thomas a
Becket puts it in T. S . t)iot's play, Murdcr in tb CatMrsl.
But ire never do enything for only one reason. We are a mixed bag of
mot,,'es and conditioning factors, some of whicb are conscious and some are
oot, A description ofonly conscious motives does not adequately account for
the complex cruses of our behavior, Aaswering thc uly question well, then,
demauds a grc.t deal of personal honesty and integrity. Sometimes it may
require psychdogicel or psychoaodytic hclp.
The ethicel chellenge of ofr is to reach the highest possible level of
honesty with ourselves so gs to be rs clear as we can be about what mov6 us.
Our real eneny is rationdization. We can con anrselves so easily. But whole-
heaned waatirg is thc only sound basis fior our of. The greater the impact
an ect will have, the more criticd it becomes to know why we are doing it.
Beneath our mix of motives and conditioning facmrs, tlten, we must try to
discover *'het we really want to ;xrt fortb and to cxprcss for ourselves snd for
others by our behavior.
But good motivation is not dl that matters. The purest of notives crn
havc causoophic consnences. So, no matter how noble the motive, lora,
wbat if, and ufut,kc must alsn be takcn inm account. Ilos can evea tell us
much about our ti61 . Hou is a mener of style; it gives €xpr€ssion to our true
convkti<riri rnd rcal ch:racter. Orr rezl obr often sneeks througtr to show
itself in orr troru all mo eesily. For exemplc, todry we hear some asseft that
while the uf of saving many Arnericrn lites in World Wer II wes a good
onq, the ioro of atomic bonbing Nagrsaki erd Hirmhima did not fustiS dre
tilling and rneiming of thousands ofJepanese civilians. Or while tlre ru[r of
bringing on emotional celrn is a good one, the laa: of aking drugs may not
lustify the physicel rnd psychologicd depcndengr that results.
Overlapping the Dma questim rre the ola if end wbt clr questions.
ffiut r/ probes foreseeeble e,ffe,cts, To rct is to choose something, but not
eveqrthing hcrt rnd now. Hene the ethicd nccesiity w zsk wbat
rt If I
Tfu Fornaion of Consticau
drooac this, what will result! What rre the foreseen consequcnces fc mysetf
and others in the shon run end in the long run? The full moral reality oiour
rctions is not limited to the irnmediate prcsent, but extends into thc futurt as
vdl. Moral respomibilfty requires thet we foresee the impact ofour behavior
rs hr es is possible- A morality bosed an l@€ wants to do thc lcast moum of
herm possible. Therefore, it demands a prudent iudgment well informed by
prcdicteble consequences.
Explorirry tfu il is not mahing consequences elone dcterminc whcther
our rctions are right or wTong. This is excessive. The reality-revealing ques
tions point to other factors as well. But becausc consequenceq are so oftea the
faal point of moral meaning, foreseeable effects dcmand our serious anen-
tion. The great moral enemy is shon-sightedness, the failure to look beyond
the immediate good we scek to the evil effects we cause along with it- In
ashitg wbat if, then, we look not only for the results in the short run and in
individual dimensions, but we also look at the effects in rhe long runrnd in its
social dimensions. Our nroral universe is not limited to our contempordies,
nor to the immediate moment. Moral respnnsibility, which is always interper-
sonel responsibiliry with a histoi, has swollen to planetary size erd exteods
throryh the gcnerations. Dscussions surrounding the rrsrs race coofirm this.
Also, we have lerned this lesson all too well in our fight with ecologicel
balance.
Wiar fcautions us from making decisions based on one or two effects, or
of exteoding consequences only into tornorrow but not to the &y rfter.
While the short term and individual dimensions of an rct can have beneftid
effects, the iong term and social dimensions of it can have caasoophic ef-
fects. For instance, euthanasih relieves rhe suffering of a dying p4tieot in fu
short ruu, but what will resutt hom the practice of euthanasia in the long nrn
and from a social point of view? It threatens the tmst upon which the
physicien-petient relationship depends, and it can devalue humen life as rdl
as dre quality and anitude of mercy among healthcre providers. Also, we
need reflection d,n the foreseeable effects of mariiuana. Its imrnedirte conse-
quences seerir harmless enough, a mild high and no hengover. But whrt ofthe
pocsibh Iong range conscquenccs of genedc deformetion and brein drmrge?
We also need refection on the use of prescription drugs to settle tension
ceused by work. For many people, soting these tensi,ons on thc levd of
biological calm is to ignorc drc real source of teosion which is ofrcn inter-
personal, not biological, in the first place. As a resr t of t*ing the drugs, the
ellect is not only physical calm.but also physical and psychologicd depen-
dence or the drug, as well as ignoring the oeedcd changcs in oae's ioter-
persond relationships. (Incidently, here we see that aDy we te}e drugs is as
serious as the tnfut if.) We also n€ed to ask about the foreseeable effeca of
surrogt€ mothcrlrmd, of adopting childrcn by single persoos, of Bsing Fri-
 15 I
IjO Reann Inlornd By Faitb Th Fonatbn {Conscicncc
if it theolo{y. This inter€st in ethics hrs develoPed ttgtg
*le the lyeasing
. cidcs on our lawns, hrms, golf courses, rnd ofshdPlifting ev€t! is "nickel- Haucrwas
*:ili'- or narrativc, in other ereas of theology'-Stanley
andJimel stuff.
One 6ing is for sure when we begin to explore arbst if' We face heed-on
".w,
L""Iu.- i -.lit.*t advocate of an "6hics of charecter"' See' for exalqlg'

ttre *r* reatity thet r toally rct is Pure illusion' "It won't
Private morel
ili;;;-;k, ibarcw a tte Cbtistian Lifc: A Stdl {.rholqicat Etbb
rfiect myone but me" is an inpos.sibility whcl we teke tlre relationrl dimen- ld" [tonio: trinitv Univcrsity kcss' 1975); elso' his cou€crrons.ol €ssrys:
l97a); with Ridtad
sftn of our lives scrixrsly end the consequences of our rctions iust rs seri- V#ll;-vrt " iNJ* Damcr Fides Puolishcrs, Irrc"
orlsly. The o6cl jrqueaian rcfuses m let us escepe the fact that we bdong m ffil ila liiJa'st na\ f*,t\"t" ^a
fr4Sadt (Nor€ Danrb: Univtrsity

odrers. ;N; Dit* E*s,D.-. tclz)i riso, A Connanitl.o! Cbaractcr--ST* P"*

gqotrc
Following closcly behind the oAar fquestion is wht clsc. Wb* clrc anbe ilti;il; Notre fro., l98l); also, 'fh Paeabtc x;ngan (Notre
done? Whet are the possible altematives? lf we think we are forced into an il"*I tjl;""*,"t .f Not," Dem" kos ,re86)'
l983li and Strffcting Prcrczcc
either/or choicc, we ought to look again. We generally have more altematives il,oi. ;;;;;;'d ;iNotre Dame Press, York Random House' Inc'' vin-
""'"-;.';;i;,-;'n;fi
opeo to us than we think. What altematives do we have to abonion for the
a,u s,^a'(t't*'
unwantd pregnancy, to oil as our primary source of eoergy, to driving alone taee Books, l%2)' P. 81.
*";Ti't.#;i
to work, to working ovcrtime five days a week, to, telwision as our primary Cttoi"" itt Morality," in Ian T' Ram,sev' cd cbritiat
' 1966)' p'
source of family entertainmenti The point is that, since every moral choice ntm'^a i"rtt-pi-ry Pbilwopby (New York: The Macmillan Co''
ineviubly has some good and some bad outcomes, we need to explore altema- '""'
20n.
5. Coo Etbiq Be Cbrit'iut''2 (Chicago: University of Chicago
hess'
tives. If there were no altematives, there would be no moral problems. Too
often we rnake ttre $Tong moral choice not becruse we are bad people, but 1975). D. 69.
""1:'S*. for example, Dondd Evans' "Does Religious Faid Conffict
beeuse we are iust too unimagimtive. We are not able to see the rich poten-
tial for good which lies within us and in our situation- Asking ulat cir keeps *i rr li"r"J iJ.-l-'ral./. autuotatl, anit Moralitl (toro*o: Univasity
of Tormto hess, 1980)' pp' 197-!tl6'
us open and challenges us to be creative and to consult a wide base of moral
widom and moral vision.
"' '";;;;V,;i;Ed n'hgi-' rh stuping.of Fltb' vttucs' oi cdturc
This, then, briedy skerches the reality-revealing questions which help us (Minncaoolis: Augsburg Publishing House' 1987)' P' 24'
'On media vio[ncc' sec i]id', pp' I I l-158'
to see the reality of our human situation for what it truly is. But beyond 8.
s. For btief report of a study on -the.signifi*::,ot. t:!ut-:-
to
asking these questions, the mature moral conscience also consults a wide base
of monl wisdon m highlight values of our human situation which might
"
*ool education' see Thomas tr't'
* Minin' "Television rnd tbc

otherwise go unnoticed if we were left on our own. Pan Three of this book il.ffi.;eh.il""
"a".u.
-Gustafson'
Mii.v"' Tk l;airy Ligbt l8 (Fall tesl): 23l+-241'
will discrss sources of moral wisdom to which we might appeel in making a 10. Csl Cbrbtior? p'
Ertbs Bc 65 '
mord iudgmeot. For the Catholic, tlrc moral teaching of the megisterium has i;: il;;;,128-188.
itt;croa" (c.'a.'i ci'v: Doubledav & cornpcav'
a special place in the formation of conscience. In the Catholic view, a prop Inc., 1978), PP.
erly informed consciencc is ioescapably ecclesial. What is the relation, then,
of personal riroral conscience to the authoritrtive teaching of the churchl This
is the focus of our next chapter.

Nota

l.
Visbn ;nd Chrett (Rrmsey: Paulist Press, l98l), p. 1. This book
offers careful criticism of Kohlbeqg as well as a proposal for an altcmative to
a
moml education based on a 'visional ethics" rather than tlre standard "iuridi-
cal ethics" promoted by Kolrlberg.
2. Recent yelrs h:ve shorjyn an incrcasing intereit in charcter in moral