On Synderesis
The notion of synderesis fascinates me. It is a term born and developed in the Middle Ages. As the scholastic academic contribution emerged so too did the notion of the natural law and our ability to grasp eternal truths. Part of this development includes how our conscience functions and how it is able to grasp practical principles. As our medieval moralists began to assert the primacy of conscience over obedience to human institution (Church and State) the notion of synderesis became a crucial element for the basis of this belief. The belief in our own personal freedom and the rational for principles like conscientious objection emerged because it was believed that in each and everyone of us exists a God-given capacity to know and discern right from wrong, good from bad. Our ability to make this individual judgment came from our conscience. The ability to grasp the moral principles however that informed our conscience, that was what moralist called the synderesis.
I have touched on this concept before but for now I want to dedicate a post to what this concept is because it is necessary for any further development and understanding of conscience and moral decision making and also because it is an interesting concept to consider in light of our ongoing and eternal consciousness.
Let me begin this exploration by reminding myself and my readers that the notion seems to have emerged as a scribal mistake from an inaccurate passage taken from a text by St. Jerome’s. After this error took place medieval theologians presumed that a difference existed or was discovered by St. Jerome himself between syneidesis and synderesis. As the theologian Charlie Curran tells us, “syneidesis is what is meant by conscience or judgment act; synderesis, in the text from Jerome, is an element of the soul that makes us feel our sinfulness and corrects the other elements when they err.” Curran goes on to define this term further by telling us that “conscience is then the act of applying the first principles known as synderesis to conduct.” (Curran, pg. 7)
Now let me share with you two theologians who were instrumental in defining this term. The scholastic doctor, Thomas Aquinas, contributed to this in the 13th century by offering the following definition in his famed Summa Theologica.
We must be naturally endowed with not only speculative principles, but also practical principles. Now the first speculative principles bestowed on us by nature do not belong to a special power, but to a special habit, which is called the understanding of principles, as the philosopher (Aristotle) explains. Hence, the first practical principles, bestowed on us by nature, do not belong to a special power but to a special natural habit, which we call synderesis. Whence synderesis is said to incline to good and to murmur at evil, inasmuch as through first principles we proceed to discover, and judge of what we have discovered. - Aquinas, ST. I:79:12
Then, in the 18th century, we have this contribution from the casuist moral theologian Alphonsus de Liguori.
When we talk about conscience some distinctions are necessary. In the first place, conscience should be distinguished from synderesis. Synderesis is the knowledge of general principles, for instance: God is to be honored, evil to be avoided, do not do to others what you would not wish to be done yourself, and so forth. Conscience, then, is the practical judgment which is formed by these principles in respect to current actions which we have to do or to avoid in the present moment, inasmuch accordance with the circumstances that are present. - Liguori, Moral Theology, pg. 323
Robert Smith recently contributed to this definition in his work, “Conscience and Catholicism” where he offers this clarifying paragraph.
Synderesis is not an ability or a faculty separate from reason; rather it is one of several capacities stemming from reason. Synderesis is the inborn capacity and habitual awareness of those first order principles governing and guiding moral practice. Since it is the role of practical wisdom to decide what must be done as good or avoided as evil here and now, there must exist some set principle or set of principles that are self-evident and not open to fluctuation, change, or debate. This first principle is known through synderesis, what is sometimes referred to in the tradition as “habitual conscience.” (Smith, pg. 6)
Synderesis is the God-given capacity that allows our conscience to an awareness of practical principles, formal norms, that allows us to discern what is right and just. It is not seen as a particle but some kind of moral orientation imbedded in our conscience that communicates to us in our intellect and affectivity. When we either know or feel that something we are asked to do or want to do is not right that is our synderesis at work. It is a capacity that informs principles that we can often recognize as “self-evident.”
In the American context synderesis plays an important role. Consider how our own founding document calls on truths that are “self-evident,” not only did our American founders assent to this belief but so to do all those who come to our land from all walks of life and cultures. The belief in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seems to be a formal norm, a fundamental principle, that Americans readily accept.
Institutions like the Church help us to form our conscience. The magisterium offers teachings like our Catholic social doctrine to help us form our practical judgments. Our conscience is the ability to form practical judgments and conduct moral actions based on these judgments. The Church’s teachings help guide us in forming these judgments. Our synderesis assesses these teachings based on the practical principles of natural law that it has access to. Bridging our synderesis and the rest of our conscience (practical judgments) is the exercise of the virtue of prudence which helps inform us of our practical principles and assess these judgments in conformity to God’s will.
That is why we Catholics believe in the primacy of conscience. Even if we have to go against the Church or the state we are obligated to follow our conscience. Our synderesis is infallible as it comes directly from God. Our prudential judgment is however fallible so we may be in error with our process of moral assessment and having the Church offer us her universal teaching helps us in forming these judgments. But according to Aquinas and Liguori, we are obligated to follow our conscience even if it is misinformed. The Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, are in agreement with this teaching.
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. (GS,#16)
This does not however dismiss our notion of our collective social conscience. If anything we are called to participate in broader moral decisions by respecting each others moral perspective and developing a collective assent to our social policies and judgments. In creative fidelity to our Church we can never simply dismiss its teachings. We must struggle to understand the social principles and positions that it offers even if we cannot agree with it. We Catholics are to always be informed by our Church’s teaching, even if our conscience does not always conform to all that it teaches.
Timothy O’Connell presents us with this role for the Church and how its teachings can help form our conscience. In his presentation he makes three distinctions for conscience. Conscience1 is a characteristic, a general sense of moral responsibility. Conscience2 is a discerning process. Conscience3 is what he calls the event, the final norm that guides a person’s action. Regarding the role of the Church O’Connell is addressing conscience2, the process of discernment.
…When conscience2 sets out on its journey searching for the truth, it will take the time to listen respectfully to the insights of the Church. It will not listen in a way that makes it deaf to all other insights. But it will listen in a way that such listening is a dictate of common sense and a consequence of deeply held faith. …The Church therefore has an important and responsible role in the process of moral education. But it is a limited role. It is limited by the possibility of error, the possibility of incompleteness, and the possibility of inadequacy. The prudent person acknowledges this, yet seeks from the Church whatever wisdom it is able to give her or him. (Curran, pg. 33&35)
This role is very much consistent to what Aquinas teaches us about the primacy of following our conscience. Robert Smith reminds us of this when he shares this insight:
Setting forth a case in the extreme, Aquinas held it better for someone to die excommunicated from the church rather than to abdicate a decision of conscience. In his own words: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience, should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” (Smith, pg. 119)
And all this is because of our theology of conscience in light of the synderesis. The infallible God-given capacity to grasp practical principles through the natural law.
As Catholics/Christians are first formal norm and principle is to know that God is love and as such we are called to love one another in the way that Jesus demonstrated his love to us. The primacy of conscience and our capacity to grasp these principles do not grant us license to moral relativism or subjective morality. This principle forces us to develop our moral code in community with one another and this is why our Church has moral relevance for us all. But we are called to participate in this process as moral agents and to freely assent to the moral decisions we must make.
Bernard Haring describes a distinctively Christian conscience in this way:
Christians should be distinguished by their true humanity and co-humanity, for at the centre of faith is the dogma of the incarnation of the Word of God. God reveals himself in full humanity and co-humanity in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Therefore, if we take seriously our identity as Christians, we develop a distinctively Christian conscience whereby we think, above all, of our solidarity with all of humankind. We believe that Christ is the redeemer and Lord of all, and that his Spirit works in all, through all and for all. (Haring, pg. 247)
Before I leave the communal nature of our conscience and how it interacts with the universal consciousness I want to add what Haring says about the "reciprocity of consciences." Here he suggests that a healthy conscience interacts within a social setting of mutual respect for the conscience of others. Here he highlights much of St. Paul's teachings found in Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 10.
The healthy conscience allows wholesome relationships with neighbour and the community. Equally and perhaps more fundamentally, wholesome relationships in mutual love and respect, and a healthy community and society, greatly promote the development and health of the individual conscience. (Haring, pg. 265)
This almost seems to stand at odds with our belief in our conscience as the individualistic moral connection with God that makes us truly free from social authority. But again Haring says that St. Paul always recognizes that a healthy conscience is bound to respect everyone else's conscience.
Surely, conscience also means self-reflection, self-awareness, to be at peace with oneself, to experience one's growing wholeness or the threat against it. But genuine self-awareness and self-reflection are existentially not possible without the experience of encounter with the other. (Haring, pg. 266)
The concept of synderesis, even though it originated as a scribal mistake, is crucial for how our theological anthropology emerged and how we developed as morally responsible individuals who participate in the social contract with one another. As our theological anthropology develops further in light of quantum mechanics and the new cosmology I think that the notion of the synderesis will help us see how our conscience may exist as an eternal aspect of our consciousness and it is likely that within the hyperdimensional conscious our synderesis may also share in that quality of transcending the limits of time and space.
I believe that our Church could benefit from a review and renewal of our moral theological tradition. It’s been over 30 years since Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical Veritatis Splendor which attempted to respond to concerns regarding Catholic moral theology. The document adopted a traditionalist emphasis on obedience to magisterial teaching and was unfortunately dismissive of the pastoral perspective that was more authentic to the spirit of the scholastic/casuist tradition and the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps a new encyclical can help the Catholic community renew the this pastoral approach and reassert the casuist moral process. I hope that the notion of the synderesis can be further explored and appreciated by our Catholic ethical community in helping us appreciate the pastoral emphasis of our moral tradition.
