GE2025 Tamko la baraza la maaskofu kupitia kamati ya haki na amani Hali ya nchi juu ya haki ya uhai tunapomkumbuka baba wa taifa 2025

[Just Pray]

Askofu Jude Thadeus Ruwa'ichi akizungumza leo Oktoba 14, 2025 katika Misa ya Takatifu ya Hija ya UWAKA kuwategemeza Masista wa Shirika la Dada Wadogo Visiga Pwani, jimbo Kuu Katoliki Dar es Salaam ametoa tamko la baraza la maaskofu kupitia kamati ya haki na amani kuhusu uchaguzi mkuu 2025 na utekaji unaoendelea

"Tunapoazimisha siku ya mwalimu Nyerere na kumkumbuka baba wa taifa tunatafakari pia juu ya nchi yetu na ustawi wa watanzania kwa ujumla wake. Tunatafakari nchi yetu katika historia yake na uchaguzi mkuu. Ndugu zangu tukio la uchaguzi mkuu ni tukio la kikatiba kwani hapo ndipo wananchi wanategemewa kuwapa waliowachagua dhamana ya kutawala na kuongoza nchi."

" Ibara ya nane ya katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania inaweka wazi kuwa mamlaka ya nchi yamo chini ya wananchi na serikali huwajibika kwa wananchi, serikali ikiwa na wajibu wa kulea na kuleta ustawi wa watu wote bila ubaguzi wa aina yoyote."


UCHAGUZI MKUU NA MATUKIO YA UTEKAJI YANAYOENDELEA

"Tume ya haki na amani ya baraza la maaskofu katoliki Tanzania ambayo ninaiongoza, kwa kulitazama tukio la uchaguzi mkuu wa mwaka 2025 inasikitishwa na hali inayoendelea ya kupotea na kutekwa watu. Utekaji huu unaonekana unaendeshwa kwa mpango wa kikundi maalumu ambacho kinatekeleza uovu huu sehemu mbalimbali za nchi yetu. Utekaji huu umepelekea ulinzi wa haki ya uhai ambayo ni haki ya msingi kupotea kwani hatusikii walioapa kulinda uhai wa watanzania kulaani au kukomesha huu utekaji na kutoweka kwa watu."

"Ni takriban zaidi ya miaka miwili matukio haya yamezidi kukithiri na kuwafanya watanzania wajiulize watekaji hawa wawe na nguvu kuliko vyombo vya ulinzi wa watu na kuliko wale wenye mamlaka ya kuwaletea watu matumaini ya kuishi na ustawi wake.

Dalili za kukomesha utekaji hazionekani wala hatusikiii kulaaniwa kwa matukio hayo. Ikumbukwe kuwa uhai wa kila mwanadamu unadhihirisha utukufu wa Mungu. Mwanadamu ameumbwa kwa sura na mfano wa Mungu, ni kiumbe wa pekee ambaye hakuna mwenye haki au mamlaka ya kumuondolea uhai wake kazi ya serikali ni kulinda uhai wa kila mwanadamu.

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 14 ya katiba ya Tanzania kila mtu ana haki msingi ya uhai wake na kuhakikishiwa kuwa haki hii inalindwa kwa gharama zozote zile.

Maaskofu tunataka serikali kuhakikishia raia na watu wote usalama wa haki ya uhai kwa kila mtu bila ubaguzi wowote. Uchaguzi mkuu una maana tu endapo watu wanapata viongozi wenye kulinda na wenye kutetea uhai. Wagombea wa vyama na vyama vyao kwa mujibu wa ibara ya tatu na ya tano walipaswa kuonesha uwezo na moyo wa kushinda watekaji na wauaji. Sheria zipo zinazoonesha jinsi ya kushughulikia wahalifu, kwanini basi waliopotea na kutekwa hawapatikani mahabusu?

Tunaitaka serikali izingatie kanuni ya utawala wa sheria na kuheshimu kimatendo haki ya kimsingi ya kila mwanadamu.


WITO KWA RAIA WOTE KUELEKEA UCHAGUZI MKUU 2025

Kuelekea uchaguzi mkuu nawaomba raia wote kuongozwa na dhamiri iliyo safi iliyo hai na yenye kuongozwa na ukweli halisi wenye kuzingatia hofu ta Mungu, utu wa mtu, historia nzuri ya taifa letu, umoja na mshikamano wa taifa letu, dhamiri hai na safi yenye kufanya maamuzi sahihi, kuzingatia hofu ya Mungu na utu wa mtu kama Mungu alivyowakilisha kwenye dhamiri yake, na hivyo dhamiri hii ni mahali pa kila mwanadamu kupima na kufanya maamuzi yanayobeba hadhi ya utu na kuwajibika kwake mbele ya Mungu.

Mpiga kura na mpigiwa kura mnaalikwa kuheshimu dhamiri juu ya suala hili la uchaguzi mkuu, msirubuniwe kwa vitisho wala rushwa. usirubuniwe kwa namna yoyote ile.


WITO KWA WANASIASA, VYAMA NA SERIKALI

Tunaiomba serikali na wale wenye mawazo tofauti ya masuala ya uchaguzi muongozwe na utamaduni wa mazungumzano katika kutekeleza haki, msingi za kisiasa kadiri ya ibara ya 21 ambapo kila raia ana haki hizo.

Wanasiasa kupitia vyama na serikali kaeni mzungumze, wahakikishieni watu haki zao. Nguvu ya wananchi ipo kwenye hoja siyo kwenye mabavu na hila. seriksli kupuuza wanaolalamika sio afya wala tija kwa taifa letu, wakati uliokubalika kuzungumza na sasa na wala hamjachelewa.

'Hatuchelewi kujisahihisha wala kutenda mema' Barua ya pili ya Paulo kwa Wakorinto 6:2.

Tunaiomba serikali iwasikilize raia wenye malalamiko yao ya haki zao za kisiasa. Unyenyekevu mbele ya Raia hujengeka kwenye ukweli na uwazi. Kiongozi wa watu akiwa mnyenyekevu ni mkweli na anaaminika na watu wote. tukumbuke kuwa historia ya uchaguzi katika nchi yetu kuanzia 1962 mpaka 2015 zilithibitika na ziliaminika viongozi wakapatikana hata kama zilikuwa na mapungufu yake.

Nawatakieni uchaguzi mkuu wa haki, wa ukweli, wa uhuru na wa kuaminika mwaka huu 2025"​

​

 

[Lord Denning]

Maelekezo Maalum kuhusu tarehe 29 Oktoba.

Siku hiyo kazi ni rahisi sana

Viongozi wa CCM tunaishi nao mitaani; Nyumba zao zipo mitaani kwetu, mali zao zipo mitaani kwetu.

Ofisi za CCM zipo mitaani kwetu. Ofisi za Umma nazo zipo mitaani kwetu

VItuo vya kupigia kura vipo mitaani kwetu

Mawaziri, Wabunge na Madiwani tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu, familia zao na ndugu zao tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu. Machawa na mali zao tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu.

Ndugu watanzania, mafuta ya taa, petroli na viberiti havijawahi kuwa adimu.

Tukafanye kazi iliyotukuka hiyo Oktoba 29 hadi hawa Mafisadi watuheshimu na wakome kutuchezea na kutuua.

Share na mwenzako

 

[Ozon]

Iv kati ya Rula na Roma kipi kimenyooka!?

 

[Just Pray]

Iv kati ya Rula na Roma kipi kimenyooka!?

Wewe utachagua

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

View: https://youtu.be/IlhpXH2bXyM​

Uchambuzi wa Tamko la Baraza la Maaskofu Kupitia Tume ya Haki na Amani: "Hali ya Nchi Juu ya Haki ya Uhai Tunapomkumbuka Baba wa Taifa 2025"

1. Utangulizi

Tarehe 14 Oktoba 2025 tuliadhimisha kumbukizi ya miaka 26 tangu kifo cha mtu aliyekuwa muumini na mwalimu mkuu wa misingi ya utu wa binadamu, Baba wa Taifa, hayati Julius Kambarage Nyerere.

Hivyo, pamoja na kumkumbuka Baba wa Taifa, Maaskofu wa TEC, kupitia Tume ya Haki na Amani, walitumia siku hii kutualika tutafakari juu ya Nchi yetu na ustawi wa watanzania kwa ujumla wao.

Kwa sababu hii, walitoa tamko linalotafakari juu ya Taifa katika historia yake kwa kuangalia tulikotoka, tulipo sasa hivi wakati wa kampeni za Uchaguzi Mkuu na tunakopaswa kwenda tangu sasa wakati wa kampeni.

Ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki, Majimboni na Kitaifa, Tume za Haki na Amani ni vyombo vya kutekeleza utume wa Kanisa katika masuala yanayohusu utatuzi wa migogoro kwa njia ya upatanisho, haki na amani.

Katika ngazi ya Dunia, Tume za Haki na Amani huratibiwa na Baraza la Kipapa Kuhusu Haki na Amani.

Maudhui ya Tamko la TEC, kupitia Tume ya Haki na Amani, yanafafanuliwa hapa chini chini ya vichwa kadhaa.

2. Tulikotoka: Serikali huwajibika kwa wananchi kwa mujibu wa katiba

Kihistoria, Maaskofu wanaona kuwa, tukio la Uchaguzi Mkuu ni tukio la kikatiba kwani kupitia tukio hilo ndipo wananchi hutegemea kuwapa viongozi waliowachagua dhamana ya kutawala na kuongoza nchi kwa niaba yao na kwa faida yao wananchi.

Maaskofu wanaeleza kuwa, tangu mwaka 1977, ibara ya nane (8) ya Katiba ya Jamuhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania iliweka wazi kwamba Mamlaka ya nchi yako chini ya wananchi na kwamba serikali huwajibika kwa wananchi, serikali hiyo ikiwa na wajibu wa kikatiba wa kuleta ustawi wa watu wote bila ubaguzi wa aina yeyote.

​

3. Tulipofika sasa hivi: Kazi ya serikali ambayo ni kuulinda uhai wa raia imeshindikana

Katika muktadha huu, Tume ya Haki na Amani, ya Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania, kwa kulitazama tukio la Uchaguzi Mkuu wa mwaka 2025 inaeleza kusikitishwa na hali inayoendelea, bila jitihada za kusitishwa, kuhusu kupotea na kutekwa kwa watu.

Utekaji huu, kwa maoni ya Maaskofu wa TEC, inaonekana unaendeshwa kwa mujibu wa mpango wa kikundi maalumu ambacho kinatekeleza uovu huu sehemu mbalimbali nchini Tanzania.

Maaskofu wa TEC wanatanabaisha kwamba, utekaji huu umepelekea ulinzi wa haki ya UHAI kupotea kwani hatusikii walioapa kulinda uhai wa watanzania, kulaani na kukomesha huu utekaji na kutoweka kwa watu.

Wanaongeza kusema kuwa, sasa ni zaidi ya miaka miwili matukio haya yamezidi kushamiri na kufanya watanzania wajiulize inakuwaje watekaji hawa wanakuwa na nguvu kubwa kuliko vyombo vya ulinzi wa watu na pia kuliko viongozi wenye mamlaka ya kuletea watu matumaini ya kuishi na ustawi wake.

Wanasikitishwa na ukweli kwamba, dalili za serikali na vyombo vyake vya ulinzi na usalama kukomesha utekaji hazionekani na wala kauli za kulaani matukio haya hazisikiki kutoka kwa viongozi hawa.

Wanatukumbusha kwamba Uhai wa Mtu ni sifa ambayo hudhihirisha utukufu wa Muumba hapa duniani na Mbinguni (Mt. Ireneo).

Kwa ajili ya kusisitiza ukweli huu Maaskofu wanarejea maandiko yasemayo kuwa, "Mwanadamu ameumbwa kwa sura na mfano wa Mungu" (Mwa. 1:26-27).

Kwa maoni yao Maaskofu, binadamu huyu ni kiumbe wa pekee ambaye hakuna mtu mwenye Mamlaka kumwondolea uhai wake. Kisha wanasisitiza kwamba, kazi ya serikali ni kuulinda uhai wa kila mtu, kila mahali na kila wakati.

Kwa ajili ya kusisitiza kauli hii, wanarejea ibara ya 14 ya Katiba ya Tanzania isemayo kwamba, kila mtu anayo Haki Msingi ya Uhai wake na kuhakikishiwa kuwa haki hii inalindwa kwa gharama zote.

Ni wazi kwamba ibara ya 14 inafafanuliwa chini ya ibara ya 31(3) inayopiga marufuku kitendo cha mtu kunyang'anywa haki yake ya kuwa hai isipokuwa tu kwa kifo kama matokeo ya vitendo vya kivita.

4. Tunakopaswa kwenda: Uchaguzi Mkuu utakaotupa viongozi wenye kulinda na kutetea Uhai

Kwa sababu hizo zote, bila kigugumizi, Maaskofu waliitaka serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kuhakikishia raia na watu wote usalama wa haki ya uhai kwa kila mtu bila ubaguzi wa aina yeyote.

Maaskfu wanahitimisha kwamba Uchaguzi Mkuu una maana tu endapo watu watapata viongozi wenye kulinda na kutetea Uhai.
Wanachosema Maaskofu ni kwamba, Uchaguzi Mkuu unaowanyima watu fursa ya kuwapata viongozi wenye kulinda na kutetea Uhai hauna maana yoyote.

Kisha Maaskofu wanashangazwa na ukweli kwamba, wagombea na vyama vyao kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 3 na 5 waliopaswa kuonesha uwezo na moyo wa kuwashinda watekaji na wauaji mpaka sasa wameshindwa kuonyesha uwezo huo.

Mshangao huu unatokana na ukweli kuwa inawezekana kwamba baadhi ya watu waliotekwa walikuwa na tuhuma za uhalifi.

Lakini tuhuma hizo haziwezi na hazipaswi kuhalalisha kitendo haramu cha utekaji wa watuhumiwa.

kuhusu jambo hili, ibara ya 15(2)(a) ya Katiba ya nchi inatamka bayana kwamba ni marufuku kwa mtu yeyote kukamatwa, kufungwa, kufungiwa, kuwekwa kizuizini, kuhamishwa kwa nguvu au kunyang'anywa uhuru wake vinginevyo, isipokuwa tu kwa kufuata utaratibu uliowekwa na sheria.

Na sheria za mwenendo wa makosa ya jinai zipo zikionyesha jinsi ya kushughulikia raia wanaotuhumiwa kuwa wahalifu.

Yaani, kanuni ya utawala wa sheria inatutaka kuwakamata, kuwafungulia mashtaka mahakamani, na kisha kuwapa dhamana au kuwaweka mahabusu.

Lakini, pamoja na ukweli huu, bado raia wapatao 200 mpaka sasa wamepotea kwa kutekwa na hawapatikani mahabusu.

Hivyo, Maaskofu wa TEC wanauliza ni kwa nini basi, raia hawa waliopotea na kutekwa na watu wasiojulikana hawapatikani mahabusu?

"Tunaitaka serikali izingatie kanuni ya Utawala wa Sheria na kuheshimu kimatendo Haki Msingi za Binadamu," wanasema Maaskofu.

Ni wazi kuwa Maaskofu wanaweka msisitizo maalum kwenye ulinzi wa haki turufu, yaani haki zinazopaswa kuheshimiwa na kila mtu, kila mahali na kila wakati, hata kama ni wakati wa vita.

5. Mkakati wa kusonga mbele: Dhamiri hai na safi yenye kufanya maamuzi sahihi kila mahali, kila wakati na kwa kila mtu

Kuelekea Uchaguzi Mkuu Maaskofu wanawaomba kila raia kuongozwa na dhamiri iliyo na ukweli halisi wenye kuzingatia Hofu ya Mungu, Utu wa Mtu, historia nzuri ya nchi yetu, umoja na mshikamano wa Taifa letu.

Wanafafanua kwamba, dhamiri hai na safi yenye kufanya maamuzi sahihi huzingatia hofu ya ukweli unaokubaliana na mapenzi ya Mungu na utu wa mtu kama ambavyo Mungu anauwakilisha ukweli huo kwenye dhamiri yake.

Ni wazi kwamba, kuna aina kuu tatu za dhamiri, yaani dhamiri safi, dhamiri potofu na dhamiri yenye mashaka.

Kimaadili, uamuzi yanayofanyika chini ya dhamiri potofu ni uamuzi potofu.

Pia, tukiwa na dhamiri yenye mashaka juu ya jambo tunawajibika kimaadili kujizuia kufanya maamuzi mpaka hapo mashaka yatakapokwisha.

Ni kwa sababu hizi, Maaskofu wanasema kuwa, dhamiri ni kitovu cha nafsi ambako ni mahali pa kila mwanadamu kufanya maamuzi yanayobeba hadhi ya UTU na kuwajimbika kwake mbele ya Mungu.

6. Mgawanyo wa majukumu wakati wa safari yetu

Mkakati wa Maaskofu wa kujenga dhamiri safi ni ni mradi wa pamoja kitaifa ukiwa unajumuisha wadau mbalimbali.

Viongozi wa dini wanapaswa kuendelea na kazi ya kujenga dhamiri safi miongoni mwa waumini wetu ili ziendane na mapenzi ya Mungu kila mahali na kila wakati.

Walimu wa somo la uraia mashuleni wanapaswa kuendelea kufundisha na kusisitiza tunu za kimaadili katika Taifa.

Wazazi nyumbani wanapaswa kuisitiza umuhimu wa dhamiri safi bila kuchoka mingoni mwa watoto wao, wajukuu zao na vitukuu wao.

Wandishi wa habari, wahariri na wamiliki wa vyombo vya habari wanapaswa kusaidia Taifa kuzifahamu na kuzipenda tunu chanya za kiutu na kuzitofautisha na tunu hasi dhidi ya utu.

Katika muktadha huu, Maaskofu wanawaalika waiga kura na wapigiwa kura kuheshimu dhamiri zao juu ya suala la uchaguzi mkuu.

Mpiga kura anakumbushwa asirubuniwe na wagombea au mawakala wao kwa vitisho wala kwa rushwa ili ukasaliti sauti ya dhamiri yako.

Maaskofu wanaiomba Serikali na wale wenye mawazo tofauti juu ya masuala ya uchaguzi muungozwe na utamaduni wa kuwa na mazungumzano katika kutekeleza haki msingi za kisiasa kadri ya ibara ya 21 ambapo kila raia ana haki hizo.

Wanaiomba Serikali iwasikilize raia wenye malalamiko yao juu ya haki zao za kisiasa.

Wanasisitiza kuwa unyenyekevu mbele ya raia hujengeka kwenye Ukweli na Uwazi. Kiongozi wa watu mnyenyekevu ni mtu mkweli na huaminika na watu wote.

7. Rasilimali zinazohitajika kwa ajili ya kufanikisha safari yetu

Kwa mujibu wa Katekisimu ya Kanisa Katoliki ibara ya 1784, Maaskofu wanafundisha kwamba elimu ya kujenga dhamiri iliyoundwa vizuri ni "kazi ya maisha yote".

Kwa hivyo, ni wazo kuwa, sote tunalo jukumu la kuunda dhamiri zetu ipasavyo.

Kazi hii inapaswa kufanywa na kuendelea kufanywa kwa njia mbalimbali.

Njia hizo ni pamoja na kuchunguza misahafu; kukuza ujuzi wetu katika falsafa ya maadili; kusoma mafundisho ya kijamii ya kanisa juu ya haki na amani; na kupitia katiba za Kanisa.

Aidha tunapaswa kusoma historia za maisha ya watakatifu; kuhudhuria mara kwa mara kwenye sala; kushiriki katika sakramenti mbalimbali; na kuhudhuria mara kwa mara misa takatifu.

Pia, tutafungamanisha tangazo la dunia kuhusu haki za binadamu na injili, na tutafungamanisha tangazo la dunia kuhusu haki za binadamu pamoja na matendo ya rozari.

Walei, watawa, mapadre, na maaskofu wanawajibika kutafanya kazi hii kwa pamoja bila kuchoka.

Magzeti, redio na luninga zinazomilikiwa na Kanisa ni vyombo muhimu katika kazi hii.

8. Ratiba ya utekelezaji wa mkakati wetu wa kitaifa

Kuhusu ratiba ya utekelezaji wa mradi huu, Maaskofu wanahimiza kwamba, wanasiasa kupitia vyama na serikali wakae wazungumze ili kuhakikishia watu haki zao.

"Nguvu ya wananchi iko kwenye HOJA," wanasema Maaskofu.

Kisha Maaskofu wanaonya kwamba, "Serikali kupuuza wanaolalamika si afya kwa Taifa."

Kwa maoni ya Maaskofu, wakati uliokubalika kuzungumza ni sasa na wala hatujachelewa.

Kuhusu ukweli huu Maaskofu wananukuu maandiko yasemayo, "Hutuchelewi kujisahihisha na kutenda mema" (2 Kor 6:2).

9. Vigezo vya kupima ufanisi wa mradi wa kujenga dhamiri safi

Tamko la Maaskofu Katoliki linahitimishwa na kauli yenye uzito wa pekee katika muktadha wa kihistoria, ikionyesha kigezo muhimu kwa ajili ya kutufahamisha kwamba sasa dhamiri safi imetamalaki.

"Tukumbuke kuwa historia ya Chaguzi zetu tangu 1962 hadi 2015 zilithibitisha kuwa kuaminika kwa kiongozi hutokana na uchaguzi ulio wa haki, wenye kuaminika na huru katika mipaka ya dhamiri licha ya mapungufu yaliyokuwepo," wanasema Maaskofu.

Wanachomaanisha Maaskofu ni kwamba, kwa kuwa kuaminika kwa kiongozi hutokana na uchaguzi ulio wa haki, wenye kuaminika na huru katika mipaka ya dhamiri, basi tukiona dalili hiyo tujue mradi wa kujenga dhamiri umefanikiwa. Vinginevyo tuongeze juhudi.

10. Hitimisho

Baada ya kauli nzito za kufundisha na kuonyesha, Maaskofu waliwatakia wananchi Uchaguzi Mkuu 2025 ulio wa Haki, wenye kuaminika na ulio huru katika mipaka ya dhamiri zenu.

Tamko lilisainiwa na Yuda Thaddeus Rwai'chi, Askofu Mkuu Wa Jimbo Kuu La Dar Es Salaam, ambaye pia ni Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Haki na Amani, Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania.

Tamko hilo lilisainiwa JIjini Dar Es Salaam, tarehe 14 Oktoba 2025.

VIAMBATANISHO MUHIMU KWA AJILI YA UFAFANUZI WA ZIADA:

1. KIAMBATANISHO A: FALSAFA YA KIMAADILI KUHUSU UHURU WA DHAMIRI (MKEKA NA PDF)
2. KIAMBATANISHO B: TAMKO LA MAANDISHI LENYE SAINI NA MHURI RASMI (PICHA)

KIAMBATANISHO A: FALSAFA YA UHURU WA DHAMIRI

A PHILOSOPHY OF THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE​

Source: Fagothey, Austin (2000), Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice Based on the Teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas(Charlotte, North Carolina: TAN Books); Chapter 13: Conscience, pp. 124-135.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The law gives the general principle, such as "Do not lie, steal, murder," but it does not tell whether this particular act done by this particular person here and now is an act of lying, stealing, or murdering.

Laws would be useless unless each person had some ability to apply the law to the concrete situations in which he finds himself. This ability, this connecting link between the law and the individual act, is conscience.

Hitherto we have been dealing with objective morality, and now make the transition to subjective morality.

The norm of morality and the natural law provide the objective basis of morality, for by them we can tell whether a certain kind of act is of its own very nature good or bad or indifferent, and also whether it becomes good or bad by external circumstances.

Conscience stands as the subjective basis of morality, for by it the individual person determines whether this individual act of his, done here and now in these circumstances and with this intention in mind, taking into consideration all the factors that may modify his knowledge or consent, is good or bad for him.

We have the following points to discuss:

• What is conscience?
• How is the judgment of conscience formed?
• Must we always follow the dictate of conscience?
• May we act with a doubtful conscience?
• How can doubts of conscience be solved?

INITIAL SUMMARY

In our daily moral decisions, we pass from objective to subjective morality.

An individual person applies the norm of morality and the natural law to his own acts by using his conscience.

Conscience is not a special faculty, but a function of the practical intellect, that is intellect oriented toward action, judging the concrete act of an individual person as morally good or evil.

The reasoning used by the intellect is a deductive syllogism, the major premise being an accepted moral principle, the minor an application of the principle to the case at hand, the conclusion the judgment of conscience.

Antecedent conscience is a guide to future acts, consequent conscience a judge of past acts.

A correct conscience judges good as good, evil as evil; an erroneous conscience judges good as evil or evil as good.

A certain conscience judges without fear of the opposite; a doubtful conscience either makes no judgment or judges with fear of the opposite.

Conscience is strict or lax according as it tends to perceive or overlook moral values. Always obey a certain conscience.

A certain and correct conscience is but the clear and proper application of the moral law.

Prudential certitude, the exclusion of any prudent fear of the opposite, is all that can be expected in moral matters.

A certain but erroneous conscience must also be followed because the agent cannot distinguish it from a correct conscience and has no other guide; the act is subjectively right even if objectively wrong.

Never act with a doubtful conscience. To do so is to be willing to perform an act whether it is wrong or not, refusing to take the means to avoid evil.

A person in doubt must first use the direct method of inquiry and investigation to dispel the doubt.

If this yields no results, the indirect method of forming one's conscience may be used, which consists in solving, not the theoretical doubt (what is the actual truth?), but only the practical doubt (how should a doubting person act in this case?).

The practical doubt can always be solved by using one of two reflex principles:

The morally safer course is to be chosen. This is always allowable, but is often costly.

It must be used if the case concerns, not the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act, but the effectiveness of means used to an end that must certainly be attained.

A doubtful law does not bind. This principle may be used only when there is question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act, when either the existence or application of a law is in doubt.

A doubtful law is not sufficiently promulgated and hence has no binding force, for promulgation is essential to law.

Of the five schools probabilism has most in its favor. To bind, a law must be certain, and no law can be certain if there are solidly probable reasons against it, no matter how strong the probability for it may be.

It is practically impossible to weigh the degrees of probability on each side; probabilism makes it unnecessary.

MEANING OF CONSCIENCE

The word conscience comes from the Latin conscientia (literally, knowing with), which covers the two ideas of consciousness and conscience.

For clarity's sake Latin writers must distinguish between conscientia psychologica and conscientia moralis, since they have but one word, and modern writers in the Romance languages must make a similar distinction.

This is not necessary in English, where consciousness is the psychological term and conscience the ethical term.

Conscience is sometimes called the voice of God, but this expression is to be understood metaphorically, not literally.

It does not mean that we get a special revelation from God about each act we are going to do.

God speaks to us through our ordinary human nature and through the ordinary faculties of that nature.

Supernatural manifestations are outside the scope of ethics. In the popular mind conscience is often thought of as an "inner voice," a "still small voice," telling us what to do or avoid.

Doubtless, most people do experience a reaction of the subconscious based on their childhood environment and training, a tendency to approve or disapprove of things for which approval or disapproval was shown in childhood.

Such latent prepossessions, whether predilections or prejudices, will often give correct moral estimates if one has been brought up well. But this is not what is meant by conscience as we take it.

Conscience is not a special faculty distinct from the intellect. Otherwise our judgment about the rightness or wrongness of our individual acts would be nonintellectual, nonrational, the product of some blind instinct.

Conduct of this kind would be unworthy of one whose chief characteristic is rationality.

The moral sense theory, insofar as it makes a special faculty out of conscience, is therefore unacceptable.

Conscience is but the intellect itself in a special function, the function of judging the rightness or wrongness of our own individual acts. Conscience is a function of the practical intellect.

It does not deal with theoretical questions of right and wrong in general, such as "Why is lying wrong?" "Why must justice be done?" but with the practical question: "What ought I to do here and now in this concrete situation?" "If I do this act I am thinking of, will I be lying, will I be unjust?"

It is the same practical intellect by which I judge what to do or avoid in other affairs of life: how shall I run my business, invest my money, protect my health, design my house, plant my farm, raise my family? Like other human judgments, conscience can go wrong, can form false moral judgments.

As a man can make mistakes in these other spheres of human activity, so he can make mistakes in personal conduct.

But in them all man has no other guide than his intellect. Conscience may therefore be defined as the practical judgment of reason upon an individual act as good and to be performed, or as evil and to be avoided.

The term conscience is applied to three things, and though the definition just given expresses the last of the three, it implies the other two. Conscience means:

• The intellect as the faculty of forming judgments about right and wrong individual acts
• The process of reasoning that the intellect goes through to reach such a judgment
• The judgment itself which is the conclusion of this reasoning process.

Deriving the Judgment of Conscience

The reasoning process involved in arriving at a judgment of conscience is the same as in any logical deductive argument.

Deductive reasoning supposes a major premise or general principle, a minor premise or application of the principle to a particular case, and a conclusion necessarily following from the two premises.

The major premise employed in forming the judgment of conscience is a general moral principle, either self-evident or the conclusion of previous reasoning from self-evident principles.

Medieval writers use the word synderesis to mean the habit of general moral principles, the habit of having such principles ready formed in mind and of using them as the basis of one's conduct.

What the broad metaphysical principles of contradiction, sufficient reason, causality, and the like, are to theoretical reasoning, the principles of synderesis such as, "Do good and avoid evil," "Respect the rights of others," "Do as you would be done by," are to practical moral reasoning.

The major premise may be either a principle of synderesis or a conclusion derived from it but held by the individual as a general rule of conduct.

The minor premise brings the particular act here and now to be done under the scope of the general principle enunciated in the major. The conclusion logically following is the judgment of conscience itself.

Example 01:

• Lies are not allowed.
• This explanation of my conduct is a lie.
• This explanation of my conduct is not allowed.

Example 02:

• Mistakes that may harm people must be corrected.
• The mistake I just made is one that may harm people.
• The mistake I just made must be corrected.

Example 03:

• What belongs to no one may be kept.
• This object I just picked up belongs to no one.
• This object I just picked up may be kept.

We often draw the conclusions of conscience so quickly that we are not aware of their syllogistic form.

But if we reflect on the process of reasoning we have gone through, we can readily see that it is syllogistic in nature.

It usually takes the shortened form of an enthymeme: "Should I say this? No; that would be a lie"; "Must I correct this mistake? Yes; it may hurt someone"; "May I keep this? Of course; no one else owns it."

Some of the principles involved (the major premises) may be so simple that we have never expressly formulated them, though we have been acting on them for years.

KINDS OF CONSCIENCE

Conscience may be a guide to future actions, prompting us to do them or avoid them, or a judge of our past actions, the source of our self-approval or remorse.

The former is called antecedent conscience, the latter consequent conscience.

When we speak of "examining our conscience," we refer to consequent conscience.

But for the purpose of ethics antecedent conscience is far more important. Its acts are chiefly four: commanding or forbidding, when the act must either be done or avoided; persuading or permitting, when there is question of the better or worse course without a strict obligation.

Since the judgment of conscience is the judgment of the intellect and the intellect can err, either by adopting false premises or by drawing an illogical conclusion, conscience can be correct or erroneous.

A correct conscience judges as good what is really good, or as evil what is really evil.

Here subjective and objective morality correspond. An erroneous conscience judges as good what is really evil, or as evil what is really good.

All error involves ignorance, because a person cannot make a false judgment in his mind unless he lacks knowledge of the truth.

This ignorance involved in error is either vincible or invincible ignorance, and so we speak of error too as being vincible or invincible.

Hence we have a vincibly erroneous conscience if the error can be overcome and the judgment corrected, or an invincibly erroneous conscience if the error cannot be overcome and the judgment cannot be corrected, at least by means any normally prudent man would be expected to use. Conscience may also be certain or doubtful.

A certain conscience judges without fearing that the opposite may be true.

A doubtful conscience either hesitates to make any judgment at all, or does make a judgment but with misgivings that the opposite may be true.

If it makes no judgment, the intellect remains in suspense because it either sees no motives or equal motives on both sides. If the intellect judges with fear of the opposite, it assents to one side but its judgment is only a probable opinion; for this reason a doubtful conscience of this kind is sometimes called a probable conscience.

There are varying degrees of probability, running all the way from slight suspicion to the fringes of certitude.

The fact that people differ in their sensitivity to moral values gives habitual characteristics to their judgments of conscience.

We call consciences strict or lax, tender or tough, fine or blunt, delicate or gross, according as they are inclined to perceive or overlook moral values.

A perplexed conscience belongs to one who cannot make up his mind and remains in a state of indecisive anguish, especially if he thinks that he will be doing wrong whichever alternative he chooses.

A scrupulous conscience torments its owner by rehearsing over and over again doubts that were once settled, finding new sources of guilt in old deeds that were best forgotten, striving for a kind of certainty about one's state of soul that is beyond our power in this life.

Scrupulosity can be a serious form of spiritual self-torture, mounting to neurotic anxiety, that is more of a psychological than an ethical condition.

The person needs to learn, not the distinction between right and wrong, which he may know very well, but how to stop worrying over groundless fears, how to end his ceaseless self-examination and face life in a more confident spirit.

Having seen what conscience is and the main forms it takes, we must now discuss our obligation to follow the dictates of conscience. There are two chief rules which we must prove, each of which involves a serious problem:

• Always obey a certain conscience.
• Never act with a doubtful conscience.

ALWAYS OBEY A CERTAIN CONSCIENCE

Notice the difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term correct describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that his conscience represents the real state of things.

The term certain describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent, how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite.

The kind of certitude meant here is a subjective certitude, which can exist along with objective error. Hence there are two possibilities:

• A certain and correct conscience
• A certain but erroneous conscience

A certain and correct conscience

A certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to his own act.

But the moral law must be obeyed. Therefore a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. What degree of certitude is required?

It is sufficient that the conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative.

It excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but it does not rule out imprudent fears based on bare possibilities.

The reasons are strong enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter, so that he feels safe in practice though there is a theoretical chance of his being wrong.

He has taken every reasonable precaution, but cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and freaks of nature. In moral matters strict mathematical certitude (metaphysical certitude, the opposite of which is a contradiction) or even the certitude of physical events (physical certitude, the opposite of which would be a miracle) is not to be expected.

When there is question of action, of something to be done here and now, but often involving future consequences some of which are dependent on the wills of other people, the absolute possibility of error cannot be wholly excluded; but it can be so reduced that no prudent man, no one free from neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it.

Thus a prudent man, having investigated the case, can say that he is certain that this business venture is safe, that this criminal is guilty, that this employee is honest.

Prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which does not exclude such reasonable fear.

One may, of course, define certitude so strictly as to make it mean absolute certitude only; but such a one is quarreling over mere words, must find another term to indicate what we have been describing, and goes against the common usage of language.

A certain but erroneous conscience

What happens when one has an erroneous conscience? Of course, if the error is vincible, it must be corrected.

The person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting.

But a vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is seen by asking how any conscience can become vincibly erroneous.

A man may merely have a probable opinion which he neglects to verify, though able to do so.

Or he may once have judged certainly yet erroneously, and now begins to doubt whether his judgment was correct or not.

As long as he did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error has become vincible only because he is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt.

A vincibly erroneous conscience is therefore a name for a conscience that was either doubtful from the beginning or else was once subjectively certain but erroneous, and has now become a doubtful conscience.

It will be handled under doubtful conscience. If the error is invincible, we seem to have a dilemma.

On the one hand, it does not seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other hand, he does not know that he is in error and has no means of correcting it.

We solve the apparent dilemma by remembering that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and hence is not chargeable to the agent.

A person acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may do something that is objectively wrong, but, since he does not recognize it as such, it is not subjectively wrong.

The person is free of guilt by the invincible ignorance bound up in his error.

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous. Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.

But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot be distinguished from a correct conscience.

Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.

But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.

Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.

The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.

The will-act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.

Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists.

If a man is firmly convinced that his action is right, he is obeying the moral law as far as he can; if he is firmly convinced that his action is wrong, he is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.

NEVER ACT WITH A DOUBTFUL CONSCIENCE

The man who is acting with a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience is avoiding moral evil as far as he can. It is not his fault that his judgment is mistaken and he has no reason for believing that it is mistaken.

But the same cannot be said of one who acts with a doubtful conscience.

He has reason for believing that his intended act may be wrong, yet he is willing to go ahead and perform it anyway.

True, he is not certain that he will violate the law, but he will not take the means to avoid this probable violation.

Thus the man is prepared to perform the act whether it violates the law or not. Such contempt of law shows bad will, for he wills the act whether it is right or wrong, and if it turns out to be objectively right this is only accidental.

Therefore it is never lawful to act with a doubtful conscience. What, then, must a person with a doubtful conscience do?

His first obligation is to try to solve the doubt. He must reason over the matter to see if he cannot arrive at a certain conclusion.

He must inquire and seek advice, even of experts if the matter is important enough.

He must investigate the facts in the problem and make certain of them, if possible.

He must use all the means that normally prudent people are accustomed to use, in proportion to the importance of the problem.

Before deciding on an important course of action, business and professional men take a great deal of trouble to investigate a case, to secure all the data, to seek expert advice, besides thinking over the matter carefully themselves.

The natural law demands the same seriousness in moral affairs. What if the doubt cannot be solved? It may happen that the required information cannot be obtained, because the facts are not recorded or the records are lost or the law remains obscure or the opinions of the learned differ or the matter does not admit of delay for further research.

If it is never lawful to act with a doubtful conscience, what can one in doubt do? It may seem that the answer is easy: do nothing.

But often this will not help, for omissions can be voluntary and the doubt may concern precisely the question whether we are allowed to refrain from acting in this case.

The answer to the difficulty is that every doubtful conscience can in actual practice be turned into a certain conscience, that no one need ever remain in doubt about what he must do. If the direct method of inquiry and investigation described has been used and proved fruitless, we then have recourse to the indirect method of forming our conscience by the use of reflex principles.

Note that we are not offered a choice between either the direct or the indirect method. We must use the direct method first.

Only when the direct method yields no result may we go on to the indirect method.

FORMING ONE'S CONSCIENCE

Recall what we said previously on invincible ignorance. It occurs in two possible cases:

• Either a man does not know that he is in ignorance, or
• He knows it but cannot get the needed information.

The first case is one of invincible ignorance or error, but not one of doubt; the person's conscience is subjectively certain, and he must follow his certain conscience, whether correct or invincibly erroneous, as was previously proved.

But the second case is one of doubt, for here the person realizes his ignorance and consequently doubts what he ought to do. The important thing to notice is that the doubt is really double:

• What is the actual truth on the matter in hand?
• What is one obliged to do in such a situation?

The first is the theoretical or speculative doubt, and this is the question that cannot be answered, because the direct method was used and failed to yield results.

The second is the practical or operative doubt, and this alone we claim can be solved in every instance.

Though many doubts are invincible theoretically, every doubt is vincible practically.

A person can become certain of what he is obliged to do, how he is expected to act, what conduct is required of him, while remaining in a state of unsolved theoretical doubt.

Thus, though the rightness or wrongness of the action is not settled in the abstract, this man becomes certain of what he in these actual circumstances is obliged or allowed to do, and therefore he acts with a certain conscience.

In other words, he finds out the kind of conduct that is certainly lawful for a doubting person.

This process of solving a practical doubt without touching the theoretical doubt is called forming one's conscience.

REFLEX PRINCIPLES

The process of forming one's conscience is accomplished by the use of reflex principles, so called because the mind uses them while reflecting on the state of doubt and ignorance in which it now finds itself.

Two such principles are of application here:

• The morally safer course is to be chosen.
• A doubtful law does not bind.

The morally safer course of action

The first principle may always be used, but the second is subject to very definite restrictions. The Morally Safer Course.—By the morally safer course we mean the one which more surely preserves the moral law, more certainly avoids sin.

Often it is physically more dangerous. Sometimes neither alternative appears morally safer, but the obligation on each side seems equal; then we may do either. It is always allowed to choose the morally safer course.

If a man is certainly not obliged to act but doubts whether or not he is allowed to act, the morally safer course is to omit the act; thus if I doubt whether this money is justly mine, I can simply refuse it.

If a man is certainly allowed to act but doubts whether or not he is obliged to act, the morally safer course is to do the act; thus if I doubt whether I have paid a bill, I can offer the money and risk paying it twice.

Thus I make certain that I have not violated the moral law. Sometimes we are obliged to follow the morally safer course.

We must do so when there is an end certainly to be obtained to the best of our power, and our doubt merely concerns the effectiveness of the means to be used for this purpose.

Here the undoubted obligation to attain the end implies the obligation to use certainly effective means.

A doctor may not use a doubtful remedy on his patient when he has a sure one at hand.

A lawyer may not choose to defend his client with weak arguments when he has strong ones to present.

A hunter may not fire into the bushes if he doubts whether the moving object is a man or an animal.

A merchant may not pay a certainly existing debt with probably counterfeit coin or sell probably damaged articles as first class goods.

In such cases the person's obligation is certain and he must use means that will certainly fulfill it. But there are other cases in which the obligation itself is the thing in doubt.

Here we have a very different question. The morally safer course, though always allowable, is often costly and inconvenient, sometimes heroic.

Out of a desire to do the better thing we often follow it without question, but, if we were obliged to follow it in all cases of doubt, life would become intolerably difficult.

To be safe morally, we should have to yield every doubtful claim to others who have no better right, and thus become victims of every sharper and swindler whose conscience is less delicate than ours.

Such difficulties are avoided by the use of the second reflex principle: a doubtful law does not bind.

A Doubtful Law

The principle, a doubtful law does not bind, is applicable only when I doubt whether or not I am bound by an obligation, when my doubt of conscience concerns the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act to be done.

I may use this principle in both the following situations:

• I doubt whether such a law exists.
• I doubt whether the law applies to my case.

For example: I may doubt whether the game laws forbid me to shoot deer on my farm, whether the fruit on my neighbor's tree hanging over my fence belongs to him or to me, whether I am sick enough to be excused from going to work today, whether the damage I caused was purely accidental or due to my own carelessness.

It is true that there are contained here questions of fact that cannot be settled, but they all bring up questions of lawfulness or permissibility of action:

Am I allowed to shoot the deer, to pick the fruit, to stay home from work, to refuse to repair the damage?

Does any law exist, applicable to my case, which certainly forbids me? If the direct method fails to prove any, then I am morally justified in doing these things on the principle that a doubtful law does not bind.

The reason behind this principle is that promulgation is of the essence of law, and a doubtful law is not sufficiently promulgated, for it is not sufficiently made known to the person about to act here and now.

Law imposes obligation, which is usually burdensome, and he who would impose an obligation or restrict the liberty of another must prove his right to do so.

A man is presumed free until it becomes certain that he is restrained, and therefore a doubtfully existing restraint or law loses its binding force.

Be careful to distinguish these cases from those which fall under the other principle. I may not roll boulders down a hill in the mere hope that they may not hit anyone on the road below, but I may cart off boulders from property that is only probably mine.

I may not leave poisoned food about on the chance that no one will care to eat it, but I may manufacture clearly labeled poison if such manufacture is only probably forbidden by law.

In the first instances there is no doubt about the law: I am not allowed unnecessarily to jeopardize human life. It may happen that no harm results, but the acts are certainly dangerous and the morally safer course must be chosen.

In the second instances the law itself of not seizing others' property or of not manufacturing certain products is of doubtful application to my case, and I may take advantage of the doubt in my favor, for a doubtful law does not bind.

SYSTEMS OF PROBABILITY

Nearly all moralists who treat this matter accept the principle that a doubtful law does not bind, but differ on the degree of doubt or probability that would exempt one from the obligation of the law.

How doubtful does the law have to be to lose its binding force?

Must the existence or application of the law be more doubtful that its nonexistence or nonapplication, or equally so, or will any doubt suffice to exempt one from the obligation?

On this point there are several schools of thought, graded as below in decreasing severity.

For a man to be free from an obligation, he must find that the nonexistence of a law imposing such obligation, or the non-applicability of the law to his case, is:

• Certain or nearly so, Tutiorism
• More probable, Probabiliorism
• Equally probable, Equiprobabilism
• Solidly probable, Probabilism
• Barely possible, Laxism

Of these systems the two extremes, tutiorism and laxism, are utterly unacceptable and they are mentioned only as possible points of view. Neither really applies the principle that a doubtful law does not bind.

Tutiorism holds that we are bound by practically every obligation of whose existence we have a well-founded suspicion. This is an intolerable burden and quite impossible in practice.

Laxism practically does away with all obligation; a slight and trifling reason does not constitute real probability, and cannot be the grounds for a prudent doubt. If this is all we have, we are prudentially certain of the law's existence or application, and are bound to obey it.

Of the remaining three systems probabilism is the most commonly accepted. It is the best application of the principle: a doubtful law does not bind.

The proof for probabilism runs as follows: A doubtful law does not bind, for promulgation is of the essence of law and a doubtful law is not sufficiently promulgated.

But a law against whose existence or application there stands a solidly probable argument is a doubtful law, for even one solidly probable argument destroys the certainty of the contradictory proposition.

Therefore a law against whose existence or application there stands a solidly probable argument does not bind. If we can show that equiprobabilism is too severe, it will follow that probabiliorism is untenable, since it is even more severe.

But equiprobabilism is too severe, both in theory and in practice, as the following arguments show. Therefore, since tutiorism and laxism have both been rejected, only probabilism remains.

Equiprobabilism is too severe in theory

It goes on the principle that a doubtful law does not bind, but supposes that a law is not sufficiently doubtful to excuse a person from obeying it unless the reasons against the law are equally as probable as the reasons for the law.

But there is no point in demanding equal reasons on both sides. Obligation does not exist unless it is certain, for the law imposing such an obligation would not be sufficiently promulgated.

Any proposition is doubtful if there is a solidly probable reason against it, no matter how many or strong the reasons for it. No proposition can be certain when there is any solid probability for its contradictory.

Equiprobabilism is too severe in practice

The natural law is not intended by God to impose unreasonable and intolerable burdens on man.

But the weighing of probabilities on each side to determine whether they are equal, or greater on one side than the other, would be an unreasonable burden.

The average man has neither time nor knowledge nor ability for such a comparison.

The learned after years of study are often unable to fix the exact amount of probability on each side of a case.

In practice decisions must usually be made promptly, and yet be made with a certain conscience.

Equiprobabilists, of course, do not require a mathematical measuring of probabilities on each side but say that we must follow the opinion in favor of the law when it is certainly more probable and need not follow it when it is certainly less probable.

It is the case of equality or near equality in probabilities that causes the trouble. If the doubt concerns the existence of the law, they say that liberty is in possession and the law need not be followed; but if the doubt concerns the cessation of the law, the law is in possession and must be followed.

The difficulty of the system, however, still remains. It requires a careful estimate, though not a mathematical measurement, of the weight of probability on each side and a further judgment on how careful such an estimate must be, besides the distinction between the existence and cessation of the law.

Even the roughest estimate of the weight of probability may often be very difficult, too much so for practical use.

It may be objected that it is no more difficult to determine the degree of probability than to determine whether or not an opinion is solidly probable. A little reflection will show that this is not so.

Solid probability merely means that an opinion is really and truly probable, that the reasons in its favor are not frivolous or trifling, such as the laxists would be content with.

To determine that an opinion is solidly probable, it is sufficient to have a few or even one good weighty argument in its favor, although the arguments against it may be stronger.

To show that one side has equal or greater probability, as equiprobabilism and probabiliorism demand, all arguments for and against must be listed and their relative merits weighed. This is often a hopeless task, baffling the best experts.

Probabilism makes it unnecessary. Must one be consistent in the use of probabilism? If it is probable that a law binds, it is also probable that it does not bind.

May a person in one case follow the opinion that the law binds, and then in another but exactly similar case follow the opinion that the law does not bind?

Since the whole theory of probabilism means that, when certitude cannot be obtained, one may follow any solidly probable opinion, there is no reason why one may not use either opinion, and therefore different opinions in different individual cases, whether they are similar or not.

Therefore a lawyer can follow the probable opinion that a will is valid, if that favors his client in this case; then in another but exactly similar case, he can follow the probable opinion that such a will is invalid, if that is what favors the client he has now.

But regarding the same individual will, he would not be allowed to follow the opinion that it is valid so as to accept the inheritance, and also follow the opposite opinion that it is invalid so as to avoid discharging the legacies; the same individual will cannot be held both valid and invalid at once.

CONCLUSION

This whole matter of forming one's conscience may seem to involve a great deal of subtlety and casuistry.

Some people have an emotional rebellion against these refinements, as contrary to straightforward simplicity and sincerity.

The first thing to note, in answer to such complaints, is that one can always follow the morally safer course.

But in ethics we are studying not only what is the better, nobler, and more heroic thing to do, but also exactly what a man is strictly obliged to do.

A generous man will not haggle over good works, but an enlightened man will want to know when he is doing a strict duty and when he is being generous.

Accurate moral discrimination is particularly necessary in judging the conduct of others. In our personal lives we may be willing to waive our strict rights and to go beyond the call of duty, but we have no business imposing on others an obligation to do so.

The borderline between right and wrong is difficult to determine. It is foolish to skirt it too closely, but we are not allowed to accuse another man of wrongdoing if he has not done wrong.

This is why we were obliged to detail these principles so carefully, even at the risk of appearing subtle and casuistic.

SUMMARY

We pass from objective to subjective morality. An individual person applies the norm of morality and the natural law to his own acts by using his conscience.

Conscience is not a special faculty, but a function of the practical intellect judging the concrete act of an individual person as morally good or evil.

The reasoning used by the intellect is a deductive syllogism, the major premise being an accepted moral principle, the minor an application of the principle to the case at hand, the conclusion the judgment of conscience.

Antecedent conscience is a guide to future acts, consequent conscience a judge of past acts.

A correct conscience judges good as good, evil as evil; an erroneous conscience judges good as evil or evil as good.

A certain conscience judges without fear of the opposite; a doubtful conscience either makes no judgment or judges with fear of the opposite.

Conscience is strict or lax according as it tends to perceive or overlook moral values.

Always obey a certain conscience. A certain and correct conscience is but the clear and proper application of the moral law.

Prudential certitude, the exclusion of any prudent fear of the opposite, is all that can be expected in moral matters.

A certain but erroneous conscience must also be followed because the agent cannot distinguish it from a correct conscience and has no other guide; the act is subjectively right even if objectively wrong.

Never act with a doubtful conscience. To do so is to be willing to perform an act whether it is wrong or not, refusing to take the means to avoid evil.

A person in doubt must first use the direct method of inquiry and investigation to dispel the doubt.

If this yields no results, the indirect method of forming one's conscience may be used, which consists in solving, not the theoretical doubt (what is the actual truth?), but only the practical doubt (how should a doubting person act in this case?).

The practical doubt can always be solved by using one of two reflex principles:

The morally safer course is to be chosen. This is always allowable, but is often costly.

It must be used if the case concerns, not the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act, but the effectiveness of means used to an end that must certainly be attained.

A doubtful law does not bind. This principle may be used only when there is question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act, when either the existence or application of a law is in doubt. A doubtful law is not sufficiently promulgated and hence has no binding force, for promulgation is essential to law.

Of the five schools probabilism has most in its favor. To bind, a law must be certain, and no law can be certain if there are solidly probable reasons against it, no matter how strong the probability for it may be.

It is practically impossible to weigh the degrees of probability on each side; probabilism makes it unnecessary.


KIAMBATANISHO B: TAMKO LA MAANDISHI LENYE SAINI NA MHURI RASMI (PICHA)

 

[hagau]

October 14

 

[Tonny Kapola Gas Station]

 

[M O N S T E R]

1. Utangulizi

Tarehe ya leo 14 Oktoba 2025 [aliyekuwa muumini na mwalimu mkuu wa misingi ya utu wa binadamu]. [Hivyo,] pamoja na kumkumbuka Baba wa Taifa, [siku hii] inatukutanisha pia kutafakari juu ya Nchi yetu na ustawi wa watanzania kwa ujumla wao. Tunatafakari juu ya Taifa katika historia yake na [tulipo sasa hivi kwenye] Uchaguzi Mkuu [na tunakopaswa kwenda tangu sasa].

2. Tulikotoka: “Serikali huwajibika kwa wananchi [kwa mujibu wa katiba]”

Tukio la Uchaguzi Mkuu ni tukio la kikatiba kwani hapo ndipo wananchi hutegemewa kuwapa [viongozi] waliowachagua dhamana ya kutawala na kuongoza nchi [kwa niaba na kwa faida ya wananchi hao].

Ibara ya nane (8) ya Katiba ya Jamuhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania inaweka wazi kuwa Mamlaka ya nchi yako chini ya wananchi na serikali huwajibika kwa wananchi, serikali ikiwa na wajibu [wa kikatiba] wa kuleta ustawi wa watu wote bila ubaguzi wa aina yeyote.

3. Tulipofika: “Kazi ya serikali [ambayo] ni kuulinda huu uhai [wa raia imeshindikana]”

Tume ya Haki na Amani ya Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania kwa kulitazama tukio la Uchaguzi Mkuu wa mwaka huu 2025 imesikitishwa na hali inayoendelea bila kusitishwa ya kupotea na kutekwa kwa watu.

Utekaji huu unaonekana unaendeshwa kwa mpango wa kikundi maalumu ambacho kinatekeleza uovu huu sehemu mbalimbali nchini.

Utekaji huu umepelekea ulinzi wa haki ya UHAI kupotea kwani hatusikii walioapa kulinda uhai wa watanzania, kulaani na kukomesha huu utekaji na kutoweka kwa watu.

Ni zaidi ya miaka miwili [sasa] matukio haya yamezidi [kushamiri] na kufanya watanzania wajiulize iweje watekaji hawa wawe na nguvu kuliko vyombo vya ulinzi wa watu na kuliko wenye mamlaka ya kuletea watu matumaini ya kuishi na ustawi wake.

Dalili za [serikali na vyombo vyake vya ulinzi na usalama] kukomesha utekaji hazionekani na wala hatusikii kulaaniwa kwa matukio haya.

Ikumbukwe kuwa Uhai wa Mtu ndio hudhihirisha utukufu wa Muumba hapa duniani na Mbinguni (Mt. Ireneo). Mwanadamu ameumbwa kwa sura na mfano wa Mungu (Mwa. 1:26-27).

Huyu ni kiumbe wa pekee ambaye hakuna mwenye Mamlaka kumwondolea uhai wake. Kazi ya serikali ni kuulinda huu uhai.

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 14 ya Katiba ya Tanzania kila mtu ana Haki Msingi ya Uhai wake na kuhakikishiwa kuwa haki hii inalindwa kwa gharama zote.

4. Tunakokwenda: “Uchaguzi Mkuu [utakaotupa] viongozi wenye kulinda na kutetea Uhai”

Maaskofu tunaitaka serikali [ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania] kuhakikishia raia na watu wote usalama wa haki ya uhai kwa kila mtu bila ubaguzi wa aina yeyote.

Uchaguzi Mkuu una maana tu endapo watu watapata viongozi wenye kulinda na kutetea Uhai.

Wagombea na vyama vyao kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 3 na 5 walipaswa kuonesha uwezo na moyo wa kuwashinda watekaji na wauaji.

Sheria zipo zinazoonesha jinsi ya kushughulikia wahalifu.

[Kanuni ya Utawala wa Sheria inatutaka kuwakamata, kuwafungulia mashtaka mahakamani, na kasha kuwapa dhamana au kuwaweka mahabusu. Lakini, raia wapatao 200 waliopotea kutekwa hadi sasa hawapatikani mahabusu.]

Kwa nini [raia hawa] waliopotea na kutekwa [na watu wasiojulikana] hawapatikani mahabusu?

Tunaitaka serikali izingatie kanuni ya Utawala wa Sheria na kuheshimu kimatendo Haki Msingi za Binadamu.

5. Mkakati wa kusonga mbele: “Dhamiri hai na safi yenye kufanya maamuzi sahihi”

Kuelekea Uchaguzi Mkuu tunawaomba kila raia kuongozwa na dhamiri iliyo na ukweli halisi wenye kuzingatia Hofu ya Mungu, Utu wa Mtu, historia nzuri ya nchi yetu, umoja na mshikamano wa Taifa letu.

Dhamiri hai na safi yenye kufanya maamuzi sahihi huzingatia hofu ya Mungu na utu wa mtu kama Mungu anavyouwakilisha kwenye dhamiri yake.

[Katika uhuru wao wa kikatiba wa kuunda dhamiri zao kuelekea uchaguzi mkuu, wapiga kura wanapaswa kufahamu kwamba kuna aina saba za dhamiri. Yaani, dhamiri safi, dhamiri potofu, dhamiri isiyo na shaka, dhamiri yenye shaka, dhamiri iliyolegea, dhamiri njema, na dhamiri nyembamba].

Na hivi dhamiri ni [kitovu cha nafsi ambako ni] mahali pa kila mwanadamu kufanya maamuzi yanayobeba hadhi ya UTU na kuwajimbika kwake mbele ya Mungu.

Mpiga kura na Mpigiwa kura unaalikwa uheshimu dhamiri yako juu ya suala la uchaguzi mkuu. Usirubuniwe kwa vitisho wala kwa rushwa [ili usaliti sauti ya dhamiri yako].

Tunaomba Serikali na wale wenye mawazo tofauti juu ya masuala ya uchaguzi muungozwe na utamaduni wa kuwa na mazungumzano katika kutekeleza haki msingi za kisiasa kadri ya ibara ya 21 ambapo kila raia ana haki hizo.

Wanasiasa kupitia vyama na serikali kaeni mzungumze ili kuhakikishia watu haki zao. Nguvu ya wananchi iko kwenye HOJA.

Serikali kupuuza wanaolalamika si afya kwa Taifa. Wakati uliokubalika kuzungumza ni sasa na wala hamjachelewa. Hutuchelewi kujisahihisha na kutenda mema (2 Kor 6:2).

Tunaiomba Serikali iwasikilize raia wenye malalamiko yao juu ya haki zao za kisiasa.

Unyenyekevu mbele ya raia hujengeka kwenye Ukweli na Uwazi. Kiongozi wa watu mnyenyekevu ni mtu mkweli na huaminika na watu wote.

6. Hitimisho

Tukumbuke kuwa historia ya Chaguzi zetu tangu 1962 hadi 2015 zilithibitisha kuwa kuaminika kwa kiongozi hutokana na uchaguzi ulio wa haki, huru na kuaminika licha ya mapungufu yaliyokuwepo.

Niwatakie Uchaguzi Mkuu 2025 ulio wa Haki, Huru na Kuaminika.

Jude Thaddeus Rwai'chi,
Askofu Mkuu Wa Jimbo Kuu La Dar Es Salaam
Mwenyekiti Wa Tume Ya Haki Na Amani
Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania
Dar Es Salaam,
14 Oktoba 2025.


View attachment 3490590

View attachment 3490589

At least wameamka sasa, it’s been long overdue.

 

[Tate Mkuu]

Ngoja CHAWA waje

 

[Aleyn]

Mimi sio mkatoriki ila hawa jamaa wanajitambua kwa viwango vya hali ya juu sana.

Makanisa ya kihuni kama ya akina Mwamposa, Kuhani Musa n.k huwezi kisikia haya.

 

[Aleyn]

Magufuli katika ubora wake walipambana nae, jamaa ni vichwa.

 

[VERBOSE]

YUDA ameanza kusema ngoja tusubirie nini kinafuata ingawa aliikana ile barua ya tarehe 29 October kua hakuisaini yeye kwa hio ipuuzwe ni ya wahuni wa mitandaoni yeye haimuhusu kanisa halina ugomvi na Serikali, now what is this? Mimi nikajua YUDA upo upande wa Serikali na unakubariana na kila linalofanywa na Serikali iwe inateka, inatesa na kuua watu wewe utabakia upande huo ila sasa YUDA umekua tofauti huogopi kutekwa ukaokotwa maporini huko unakula karanga mbichi na majani ya mwituni km yule Padri na kuzushiwa maneno ya uongo na Polisi?

 

[Titicomb]

Utekaji
Kushitakiwa
Dhamana
Mahabusu
Adhibiwa au kuachiwa huru.

 

[Titicomb]

YUDA ameanza kusema ngoja tusubirie nini kinafuata ingawa aliikana ile barua ya tarehe 29 October kua hakuisaini yeye kwa hio ipuuzwe ni ya wahuni wa mitandaoni yeye haimuhusu kanisa halina ugomvi na Serikali, now what is this? Mimi nikajua YUDA upo upande wa Serikali na unakubariana na kila linalofanywa na Serikali iwe inateka, inatesa na kuua watu wewe utabakia upande huo ila sasa YUDA umekua tofauti huogopi kutekwa ukaokotwa maporini huko unakula karanga mbichi na majani ya mwituni km yule Padri na kuzushiwa maneno ya uongo na Polisi?

Mkuu upo bongoland?
Umejiandaa na kibegi, karanga, na dawa za matatizo ya moyo?
Umeaandaa wosia asisumbuliwe mtu wako kwa kula pesa zako 3M?
Hujaomba kuacha kazi ya wito wako?

 

[100 others]

29 OCT kutawaka moto..

 

[VERBOSE]

Mkuu upo bongoland?
Umejiandaa na kibegi, karanga, na dawa za matatizo ya moyo?
Umeaandaa wosia asisumbuliwe mtu wako kwa kula pesa zako 3M?
Hujaomba kuacha kazi ya wito wako?

Unaniuliza mimi au unamuuliza YUDA? Maana alieandika waraka huo ni YUDA ambae mwanzo alisema yeye na kanisa wapo upande wa Serikali na hawana ugomvi wowote na Serikali na kila kinachofanywa na Serikali ni sahihi kabisa, sasa kabadirisha maelezo akianza kuwindwa asiseme hatukusema

 

[Titicomb]

Unaniuliza mimi au unamuuliza YUDA? Maana alieandika waraka huo ni YUDA ambae mwanzo alisema yeye na kanisa wapo upande wa Serikali na hawana ugomvi wowote na Serikali na kila kinachofanywa na Serikali ni sahihi kabisa, sasa kabadirisha maelezo akianza kuwindwa asiseme hatukusema

Askofu Yuda na wenzie walio saini waraka huu watakuwa wamejiandaa kupimwa akili na kupewa cheti safi HAWANA depression.
Wameandaa hati safi ya kutokuwa na madeni yaliyo topea.
Hawana vimada.

 

[Lord Denning]

Maelekezo Maalum kuhusu tarehe 29 Oktoba.

Siku hiyo kazi ni rahisi sana

Viongozi wa CCM tunaishi nao mitaani; Nyumba zao zipo mitaani kwetu, mali zao zipo mitaani kwetu.

Ofisi za CCM zipo mitaani kwetu. Ofisi za Umma nazo zipo mitaani kwetu

VItuo vya kupigia kura vipo mitaani kwetu

Mawaziri, Wabunge na Madiwani tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu, familia zao na ndugu zao tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu. Machawa na mali zao tunaishi nao mitaani kwetu.

Ndugu watanzania, mafuta ya taa, petroli na viberiti havijawahi kuwa adimu.

Tukafanye kazi iliyotukuka hiyo Oktoba 29 hadi hawa Mafisadi watuheshimu na wakome kutuchezea na kutuua.

Share na mwenzako

 

[VERBOSE]

Askofu Yuda na wenzie walio saini waraka huu watakuwa wamejiandaa kupimwa akili na kupewa cheti safi HAWANA depression.
Wameandaa hati safi ya kutokuwa na madeni yaliyo topea.
Hawana vimada.

Ukisikia YUDA amepotea usiniulize mara ya pili kapotelea wapi maana hawakawii wakiona unawapinga kila wanachofanya na haupo upande wao hata siku moja, shahidi Fr. Kitima na yule Padri alietekwa kisha kupakaziwa maneno ya kashfa za uongo, utaambiwa YUDA alikua na msongo mkali wa kuachwa na kimada na kushindwa kulipa madeni yanayomkabiri hivyo kakimbilia msituni kwenda kujificha