Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 \u201cSelf-awareness\u201d and \u201cconsciousness\u201d<\/p>\n 1.1 Psychological perspective<\/p>\n 1.2 Ethical perspective<\/p>\n 1.3 Theological perspective<\/p>\n 2 Biblical perspective<\/p>\n 2.1 Old Testament<\/p>\n 2.2 New Testament<\/p>\n 3 Historical perspective<\/p>\n 4 Development and maturity of consciousness<\/p>\n 5 Consciousness in a personalist, communal, and prophetic key<\/p>\n 5.1 Autonomous and self-transcendent moral consciousness<\/p>\n 5.2 Communal and ecclesial moral consciousness<\/p>\n 5.3 Prophetic and liberating moral consciousness<\/p>\n 6 Encounter of morality and spirituality in consciousness<\/p>\n 7 Bibliographic references<\/p>\n In the experience of consciousness, the free person perceives their ability to discern between good and evil to make responsible decisions. In Christian consciousness, the human moral experience of responsibility and the Christian spiritual experience of living faith and walking in the Spirit come together.<\/p>\n 1 \u201cSelf-awareness\u201d and \u201cconsciousness\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSelf-awareness\u201d (in English, consciousness<\/em>, in German, Bewusstsein<\/em>) and \u201cconsciousness\u201d (in English, Conscience<\/em>, in German, Gewissen<\/em>) refer to the Latin etymology of conscientia<\/em>: cum scientia, simul scire<\/em> and to the Greek syn-eidesis<\/em>: \u201cknowing-with\u201d or self-reflective knowledge, concomitant with the knowledge of something or someone. \u201cSelf-awareness\u201d is spoken of in a physiological and psychological sense of being in a conscious state, awake and able to recognize oneself in one’s actions and the environment. \u201cConsciousness\u201d is spoken of, in a moral or religious sense, as the responsible apprehension of moral and spiritual value. Since ancient times, in cultures distant from each other in space and time, there are expressions of daily life about satisfaction for good and remorse for evil, as shown, for example, by these inscriptions: \u201cThe heart is a witness; you must not act against it\u201d (Egyptian culture); \u201cAn invisible God dwells within us\u201d (Hindu culture); \u201cThe best of each human, their good and firm heart, to have God in their heart\u201d (Nahua culture).<\/p>\n 1.1 Psychological perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n In psychological consciousness, the person, who is not just another thing among things, perceives their own emotional states and reflexively returns to themselves, consciously recognizing themselves as the subject of their psychic life in the world, in time, and in relation to other people.<\/p>\n 1.2 Ethical perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n Moral consciousness perceives the call to realize moral values and fulfill norms; it judges, prudently exercising practical reason, about what should or should not be done to realize these values and apply the norms in the concrete circumstances of daily life. Socrates refers to the voice of the daimon<\/em> that advises him. Seneca calls it \u201ca vigilant observer of good and evil within us.\u201d Confucius said that he always lived \u201clistening to the voice of heaven.\u201d For Kant, it is the \u201ccourt of justice within man.\u201d Considered from the object of judgment, consciousness is true or erroneous. Considered from the subject, it is sincere or insincere. We are called to follow the call of conscience and, at the same time, recognize the possibility of error and the need to form or correct conscience. Antecedent conscience invites one to do good and avoid evil. Consequent conscience confirms satisfaction for the good done and reproves the evil committed.<\/p>\n 1.3 Theological perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n Believing moral consciousness is identified with faith that internalizes the divine call and expresses the responsible response to live practicing the love of charity (agape) with the help of grace. Consciousness is voice, light, and strength to respond to reality from faith; it enables, guides, and supports prudential judgment and responsible decision (CURRAN, 2004, p.7). It is a voice<\/em> that calls to be led by the Spirit. It is a light<\/em> that accompanies the processes of discernment and deliberation about values, norms, and circumstances. It is a strength<\/em> to decide and heal, or reconcile after recognizing errors in decision.<\/p>\n 2 Biblical perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.1 Old Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n In the Hebrew Bible, \u201cheart and entrails\u201d are metaphors for consciousness. In the depth of interiority, faith recognizes if \u201cthe heart does not reproach it\u201d (Job 27:6). David \u201cfelt his heart beat\u201d with remorse for unjust behavior (1Sam 24:6; 2Sam 24:10). The repentant psalmist cries out: \u201cCreate in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me (…) a broken and contrite heart, you, God, will not despise\u201d (Ps 51:12-18). There God promises to engrave his word: \u201cI will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts\u201d (Jer 31:33, cf. Deut 4:39). Jeremiah announces that \u201csin is engraved on the tablets of their hearts\u201d (Jer 17:1). Job defends himself: \u201cmy heart does not reproach me for any of my days\u201d (Job 27:6). The promise of the Spirit is: \u201cI will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh\u201d (Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). The Creator, who \u201csees the heart\u201d (1Sam 16:7), is the \u201cjust God who probes heart and mind\u201d (Ps 7:10; Ps 139:1-7; cf. Ps 26:2; Jer 11:20; 17:10; 20:12).<\/p>\n 2.2 New Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n Jesus preaches the inner disposition of a good heart, instead of the exteriority of Pharisaic moral consciousness (Matt 15:7-20, Luke 11:37-42). \u201cWhat comes out of a person’s heart is what defiles them\u201d (Mark 7:21-23). \u201cA good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart\u201d (Luke 6:45). The time has come to live with a new heart: God will transform it, pouring out his Spirit without limits (Luke 4:14-21; John 7:39, cf. Joel 3:1-2). Paul integrated the Hellenic tradition of consciousness (syneidesis<\/em>) with the interior and active presence of the Spirit. \u201cThose who live according to the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires\u201d (Rom 8:5), which illuminates discernment (Rom 14:16-23; 1Tim 1:5; 1Cor 2:6-16).<\/p>\n The autonomy of man’s moral consciousness consists in being a law (nomos<\/em>) for oneself (autos<\/em>): an unwritten law, engraved in the hearts (Rom 2:14-15), which is explicit in Christian moral consciousness as theonomous autonomy, coinciding with the sense of living and walking in the Spirit. Paul raises moral questions for an adult faith and consciousness, in contrast to the way of acting of a child out of fear of punishment or hope of reward (Rom 14:1-4), and emphasizes the coherence of action with one’s own conviction, highlighting the communal aspect and the repercussion of our actions on other members of the community (Rom 14:12). In this text, the key word is \u201cinternal conviction of faith\u201d (pistis<\/em>).<\/p>\n Paul integrated the popular and philosophical notion of consciousness (syneidesis<\/em>) in the Hellenic era with that of Christian faith, centered on the activity of the Spirit that illuminates discernment and strengthens decision. But the right and duty to act<\/p>\n in conscience are combined with respect for the conscience of others (1Cor 8:1-13 and 10:23-33).<\/p>\n Consciousness is the voice, guide<\/em>, and strength<\/em> of the Spirit: a voice<\/em> that does not come from outside, but is heard within; guide<\/em> to prudently discern. \u201cBlessed is the one who examines the things and makes a judgment (…) what does not come from conviction is sin\u201d (Rom 14:23); strength<\/em> to decide responsibly, prophetically denounce and bravely testify (Matt 10:19-20).<\/p>\n 3<\/strong> Historical perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n The patristic tradition preached the faithful response to the call of a conscience that was, at the same time, human or natural and Christian or spiritual; but the Latins emphasized more the images of conscience as a court, judge, or inner witness, while the Greeks preferred the comparison with the pedagogue, guide, and companion.<\/p>\n The monastic and mystical tradition cultivated discernment according to the conscience that is guided by the Spirit; but, in medieval controversies about faith and reason, they discoursed, for different reasons, about morality lived from faith through the ascetic-mystical path and the morality thought in scholastic disputes. An example of this is the controversy over the subjective and objective aspects of conscience (Bernard vs. Abelard), which culminated in the Thomistic synthesis of a conscience illuminated by the new and interior law of the Spirit, to live the first theological virtue of charity, through practical discernment according to the first cardinal virtue of prudence.<\/p>\n The scholastic tradition distinguished conscience as the capacity to discern good and evil (synderesis<\/em>) and as concrete application (syneidesis<\/em>, conscientia<\/em>). Thomas Aquinas (In 2<\/em> Sent<\/em>., disp. 24, q.2, a.4) explained this in syllogistic form: the major premise, the fruit of synderesis<\/em>; the minor, of ratio<\/em>, which determines the reason for such an action being bad; the conclusion, the result of the judgment of conscientia<\/em>.<\/p>\n In the era of moral theology manuals, from the 17th century, the role of conscience tended to be reduced to applying principles deductively, with clarity and certainty to impose norms and censor failures.<\/p>\n In controversies about laxist, rigorist, or balanced moral systems (probabilism, probabiliorism, equiprobabilism) to overcome doubts in moral judgment and decision, conscience seemed to be reduced to an instrument to grasp the moral law and apply it. This approach began in the 14th century (Ockham), due to the voluntarist, legalist, and extrinsicist mentality, which saw conscience as a simple arbiter of the encounter between objective law and subjective decision.<\/p>\n The debates of the 20th century on situational ethics provoked an authoritarian reaction from the ecclesiastical magisterium but rediscovered the spiritual discernment, forgotten after the divorce between moral theology and mystical theology.<\/p>\n The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the tradition of discernment and assumed the autonomy of a mature conscience, which should not be confused with a superego or an unconscious Freudian impulse (Gaudium et Spes<\/em> n.16-17, Dignitatis Humanae<\/em>, n.3 and 14).<\/p>\n The post-conciliar renewal of theological morality developed in parallel with the crisis of conscience caused by the rejection of contraceptive methods considered \u201cunnatural\u201d in the encyclical Humanae Vitae<\/em>. Many bishops and theologians questioned the excessive emphasis on the relationship between the ecclesiastical magisterium and the obedient conscience (H\u00c4RING, 1981; MCCORMICK, 1989, p.38-41). But this crisis favored reflection on the function of conscience capable of dissenting responsibly: not dissenting \u201cfrom\u201d the church, but dissenting \u201cin\u201d the church, feeling the church, to collaborate in this way with the evolution of understanding faith and its practice. On the other hand, an opposing reaction developed in the following decades, of a restorationist tendency, to return to the way of understanding conscience in post-Tridentine theology, as expounded by the schema De Ordine Morali<\/em>, written by the preparatory commission but rejected by the Council.<\/p>\n John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor<\/em> (VS<\/em>, 1993) was concerned with avoiding the growing opposition between renewing approaches, which sought to recover the best tradition of conscience (cf. VS<\/em> n.38, 41, 42) and anti-renewal tendencies, which emphasized the authoritarianism of the ecclesiastical magisterium (see VS<\/em> n.53, 59, 82). But, affected by the fear of relativism and subjectivism of those two decades, this encyclical, in fact, put a brake on post-conciliar renewal, criticizing theological currents of that line (VS<\/em> n.4, 5, 67, 90, 115). The post-synodal exhortations of Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium<\/em> \u2013 EG<\/em> and Amoris Laetitia<\/em> \u2013 AL<\/em>) recovered the post-conciliar paradigm shift reaffirming a morality of discernment (AL<\/em> n.300-312), which speaks more of grace than of law (EG<\/em> n.38), focused on charity and mercy (EG<\/em> n.37), respecting gradualness and limitations in the growth and maturation of conscience (EG<\/em> n.44-45), accompanying discernment and helping to form consciences, but without pretending to replace them (AL<\/em> n.37) or prohibiting them from thinking, deciding, and loving for and from themselves.<\/p>\n 4<\/strong> Development and maturity of consciousness<\/strong><\/p>\n Developmental psychology and psychopedagogy (Piaget, Kohlberg) explored the development of moral consciousness in the individual. Cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis (Durkheim, Freud) studied the evolution of the moral sense in different eras and cultures. These approaches suggested stages of growth, both in individual consciousness and in the history of the species: pre-normative, taboos, heteronomous conditionings, autonomous subjectivity, reciprocal and universalizing objectivity. But both biographically and historically, the complexity of advances and setbacks prevents organizing these stages of growth according to a homogeneous ideal sequence. Instead, they express the aspiration for the maturity of a moral consciousness viewed from the height of current reflections. Applied psychotherapy to spirituality presented the development for maturation in \u201cfive levels of consciousness\u201d; 1) sensory (an undifferentiated and dependent ego); 2) individual (an independent self-centered ego); 3) personal (an interdependent subject, a \u201cwe\u201d); 4) cosmic (interdependent with universal solidarity); and 5) eternal (in communion with the absolute) (S\u00c1NCHEZ-RIVERA, 1981).<\/p>\n These various proposals on the genesis and development of consciousness converge in a dynamic and holistic notion of moral consciousness, which conceives the task and method of educating it. Instead of reducing moral consciousness to recognizing mandates or prohibitions and rewarding compliance or reproving infraction, it reveals itself as the seed of the capacity to grasp personal and transcendent moral values. If the voice of conscience says: become what you are and are called to be, moral education will have to facilitate the dynamism of human growth to understand and respond to personal, spiritual, and total values such as, for example, loving and allowing oneself to be loved, forgiving and allowing oneself to be forgiven, thanking and allowing oneself to be thanked.<\/p>\n 5<\/strong> Consciousness in a personal, communal, and prophetic key<\/strong><\/p>\n Post-Tridentine moral theology, until the mid-20th century, besides continuing to distance itself from spiritual theology, also remained isolated from the philosophical currents of consciousness in modernity and post-modernity, not dialoguing with modern thought about self-consciousness (Descartes), nor with the autonomy, categorization, and universality of critical morality (Kant); nor with post-modern suspicions against consciousness (Nietzsche and Freud); nor with the approach to the voice of conscience in existential and hermeneutic phenomenology (Sartre, Heidegger). These forgetfulnesses and distances were recovered in reflections on conscience made by those who have reread the biblical tradition, spiritual and the best of Thomas and Kant, articulating it with the contributions<\/p>\n of existential phenomenology (Rahner, Fuchs, Lonergan), hermeneutic anthropology (Ricoeur), and critical theories of society (Metz, Guti\u00e9rrez, Boff), giving rise to the personalist, communal, and liberating approach towards which the current understanding of conscience is heading. This conception of conscience matured throughout the post-conciliar controversies: morality of faith vs. autonomy (GAZIAUX, 1995), the ecclesiastical magisterium vs. individual assent and dissent (MIETH, 1994) and on liberation theories (VIDAL, 2000).<\/p>\n 5.1 Autonomous and self-transcendent moral consciousness<\/strong><\/p>\n Consciousness is an expression of the best of oneself in the intimate core of the person, the key to their dignity. For theology, consciousness is ourselves, ultimately linked to God by faith in an attitude of listening. For moral anthropology, consciousness is the voice of authenticity that calls us to be ourselves. The voice we hear as a call to the authenticity of our autonomy is, ultimately, the voice of God (theonomy), but of a God who, by his Spirit, is in our intimacy, not to impose himself heteronomously, but to make us autonomous (theonomous autonomy) (CAFFARENA, 1983, p.244). If moral consciousness grasps good and evil in free acts as an imperative of self-realization, the radical question of \u201cwho do I want to be\u201d will be more important than the question \u201cwhat should I do\u201d; by choosing good in conscience, I choose myself as a project of personalization and humanization (L\u00d3PEZ AZPITARTE, 1994, p.52-54).<\/p>\n Consciousness, listening to the call of the Spirit that enables it to respond, is the personal perception of the appropriate response. The depth in the response would be the fundamental option, and the failure in the response would be sin. Consciousness is the center of our interiority, the backdrop of judgments and decisions that exercise prudence. This is how the sense of consciousness has been closely related to the fact of explicitly perceiving one’s own basic attitudes and fundamental options, the key to the coherence and continuity of the moral life of the subject. \u201cThe authentically personal subject, intellectually, morally, emotionally, and religiously converted, acts at the highest level of existential, moral, and responsible consciousness\u201d (LONERGAN, 1973, p.5).<\/p>\n 5.2 Communal and ecclesial moral consciousness<\/strong><\/p>\n Another meaning of the prefix con<\/em> in \u201ccon-science\u201d suggests the social aspect of moral discernment. Although the last step of a discernment process is a judgment and decision, whose responsibility is personal and non-transferable, the communal contribution is inevitable along the way to decision-making, as well as in the formation of conscience. The faces of the polyhedron of discerning conscience are: a) basic attitudes, b) data about circumstances, c) interpretation-reflection, d) contrast-counsel, and e) personal, prudent, and responsible decision (MASI\u00c1, 2015).<\/p>\n In the steps prior to the decision, the community’s point of view plays an important role.<\/p>\n a) The ecclesial community helps to shape the basic attitudes of faith, influencing the way of perceiving reality, generating habits of thinking, valuing, and acting, thus influencing moral judgments and decisions. The believer has been educated in a tradition in which they received some guidelines and criteria. The traditionally transmitted norms are an important reference; but they do not exclude the need to think and decide for oneself. The community helps to form the conscience and accompanies it in discernment but does not replace it.<\/p>\n b) Conscience does not function well without good data from life experience and sciences. By maintaining the same values and principles, different conclusions can be deduced according to changes in data. Only with data can we not discern, but without them, we cannot make good discernment. The community of information and communication, both inside and outside the Church, helps ensure this data.<\/p>\n c) From the basic attitudes towards values and with sufficient data, a judgment must be made in each case. Here the role of honest thinking comes into play, which asks, analyzes the data, interprets, and does not cease to seek creative and critical answers. This thinking does not avoid nor replace faith, nor science or experience.<\/p>\n d) We are not alone in the urgency of the decision. We need the help of other people to contrast interpretations. Various communities of people can help: for example, the community of scientific researchers; the community of thought dialogue; the community of human relations within a plural society; the communities that share religious convictions, etc. Within these helps, the guiding role of the latter fits \u2013 which should never be dominant or authoritarian \u2013 from the respective community, cultural or religious traditions. It helps us correct the passage of time and the relationship with other people.<\/p>\n The debates at the end of the last century in the Church about feeling and dissent helped to mature ecclesial conscience, beyond the old oppositions between individual conscience and ecclesiastical magisterium, in understanding the role of pastoral accompaniment as an aid to the discernment of conscience, but without replacing it to decide in its place. It is the role of the ecclesial community to help educate the moral judgment and formation of the faithful’s conscience. As a bearer of a tradition in moral matters, the Church has accumulated, over the centuries, a wealth of practical wisdom that provides important guidelines when discerning. Conscience will respect them critically, but without considering them as a warehouse of pre-fabricated answers. The community of faith becomes the place where its members can dialogue, study, and discern common moral problems. The role of the church, more than legislating, is to illuminate, from a higher dimension, with value proposals. Sometimes it will have to take an official position on concrete problems, fulfilling, in society, a function that can be, depending on the case, therapeutic or prophetic. The more concrete the problems, the less radically assertive the positions taken will be. Respecting these official positions of the church does not mean following them blindly, as if they exempted from thinking and deciding consciously.<\/p>\n e) A responsible decision (which is not the same as correct or with one hundred percent certainty) would be one that duly takes into account the four previous stages. Perhaps, after some time, we analyze the decision and find that it was wrong; but that does not mean it was irresponsible. In that sense, it was an ethically correct decision. The antecedent conscience will have to presuppose basic attitudes of response to values, before the mentioned process of informing, thinking, and debating. During the process, the conscience must also be a community and ecclesiastically accompanied conscience. After going through the process, it is necessary to take conscious, prudent, responsible resolutions, which do not need to depend one hundred percent on certainties, nor can they be imposed on others. When we want to combine respect for people with fidelity to norms, conflicts are inevitable. On these occasions, practical wisdom must intervene as a mediator. \u201cPractical wisdom,\u201d says Ricoeur, \u201cconsists in inventing behaviors that best satisfy the exceptions required by our solicitude for people, betraying the norms as little as possible\u201d (RICOEUR, 1990, p.312).<\/p>\n 5.3 Prophetic and liberating moral consciousness<\/strong><\/p>\n Liberation theology has revalued the prophetic and liberating role of conscience while promoting the call to the believing community to become the voice of the voiceless and social conscience that denounces the ideological manipulation of consciences, the oppression and exclusion of people, and promotes awareness of such a situation. The cry of the oppressed people (Ex 3:7), the denunciations of injustice by the prophets (Am 5:18-24), and the evangelical message of proximity and mercy (Luke 10 and Matt 25) are updated in the context of liberation theologies as the responsibility of prophetic conscience, to recognize systemic injustices and structural evils that demand to be denounced by the community in solidarity with the victims. This prophetic conscience calls not only to alleviate pain and poverty but to break their social, structural, political, and economic causes. This conscience updates, from faith, love for the neighbor in the struggle against all violence, racism, exclusion, discrimination, etc. It does not do so by paternalistically asking to include the poor in the system but by demanding the change of the system that excludes the poor. This conscience hears God by listening to the cry of the poor, which will guide its discernment and motivate its decisions.<\/p>\n 6 Encounter of morality and spirituality in consciousness<\/strong><\/p>\n Bonaventure’s mystical theology saw in consciousness, capable of grasping good, a loving movement of the will, rather than a cognitive judgment. But the conjunction of ethical deliberation and spiritual discernment weakened as the disconnection between morality and spirituality was accentuated. From the 17th to the 19th century, the distance between the morality of precepts and the spirituality of evangelical counsels grew. In the mid-<\/p>\n 20th century, delayed attempts were made to recover the dialogue of theological morality with spirituality. The recovery of the biblical tradition of discernment and the reflective philosophical tradition help relate, while differentiating, the respective functions of moral experience and religious experience.<\/p>\n The voice of conscience, which dictates what should be done or not done, \u201ccomes from the depths of myself (…) it is the cry of reality on the path of the absolute (ZUBIRI, 2007, p.101-104). The metaphysical-religious experience of relinking and the moral experience of obligation are diverse but related. \u201cWe are obliged to something because we are previously linked to the power that makes us be\u201d (ZUBIRI, 2007, p.93). The experience of relinking is the foundation of the moral consciousness of obligation. The phenomenon of consciousness is not reduced to a moral obligation. Consciousness is not reduced to a moral phenomenon. In it, two different experiences, moral and religious, are intimately related. \u201cThe voice of conscience is (…) the pulse and beat of divinity in the heart of the human spirit\u201d (ZUBIRI, 1997, p.66-67). The philosophical-religious experience of \u201crelinking\u201d underpins the moral experience of obligation. \u201cGod is manifest in the depths of every man (…) in the absolute voice of conscience\u201d (ZUBIRI, 1997, p.72-73). The religious dimension of personal reality is revealed in consciousness, the place of encounter between morality and spirituality.<\/p>\n Juan Masi\u00e1, SJ<\/em>. Universidad Cat\u00f3lica Santo Tom\u00e1s, Osaka (Japan).<\/p>\n 7 Bibliographic references<\/strong><\/p>\n CURRAN, C. (ed.). Conscience<\/em>. New York: Paulist Press, 2004.<\/p>\n G\u00d3MEZ CAFFARENA, J. El teismo moral de Kant<\/em>. Madrid: Cristiandad. 1983.<\/p>\n GAZIAUX, E. Morale de la foi et morale naturelle.<\/em> Louvain: Ephem. Theol. Louvain. n.119, 1995.<\/p>\n H\u00c4RING, B. Libertad y fidelidad en Cristo<\/em>. Barcelona: Herder, 1981.<\/p>\n LONERGAN, B. Method in Theology<\/em>. London: Darton, Longman, 1973.<\/p>\n L\u00d3PEZ AZPITARTE, E. Fundamentaci\u00f3n de la \u00e9tica cristiana<\/em>. Mexico: San Pablo, 1994.<\/p>\n ______. Hacia un nuevo rostro de la moral Cristiana<\/em>. Mexico: Universidad Iberoamericana, 2000.<\/p>\n McCORMICK, R. The critical calling<\/em>. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press, 1989.<\/p>\n MAHONEY J. The Making of Moral Theology<\/em>. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.<\/p>\n MASI\u00c1, J. Animal vulnerable<\/em>. Madrid: Trotta, 2015.<\/p>\n MIETH, D. La teolog\u00eda moral fuera de juego<\/em>. Barcelona: Herder, 1994.<\/p>\n RICOEUR, P. Soi m\u00eame comme un autre<\/em>. Paris: Seuil, 1990.<\/p>\n S\u00c1NCHEZ RIVERA, J. M. Integraci\u00f3n ps\u00edquica y psicolog\u00eda human\u00edstica<\/em>. Madrid: Marova, 1981.<\/p>\n VIDAL, M. Nueva moral fundamental. El hogar teol\u00f3gic de la \u00e9tica<\/em>. Bilbao: Descl\u00e9e De Brouwer, 2000.<\/p>\n ZUBIRI, X. El problema filos\u00f3fico de la historia de las religiones<\/em>. Madrid: Alianza y Fundaci\u00f3n Xavier Zubiri, 1993.<\/p>\n ____. El hombre y Dios<\/em>. Madrid: Alianza y Fundaci\u00f3n Xavier Zubiri, 2007.<\/p>\n For further reading<\/strong><\/p>\n BOCKLE, Franz. Hacia una conciencia cristiana<\/em>: conceptos b\u00e1sicos de la moral. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1981.<\/p>\n MAJORANO, S. A Consci\u00eancia<\/em>. Uma vis\u00e3o crist\u00e3. Aparecida: Santu\u00e1rio, 2000.<\/p>\n RUF, Karl. Curso Fundamental de teologia moral<\/em>: consci\u00eancia e decis\u00e3o. S\u00e3o Paulo: Loyola, 1994.<\/p>\n BUR\u00d3N OREJAS, Javier.<\/a> Psicolog\u00eda y conciencia moral<\/em>. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2010.<\/span><\/p>\n DUQUE, Roberto Esteban. La voz de la conciencia. Madrid: Encuentro, 2015.<\/span><\/p>\n DAMASIO, Ant\u00f4nio.<\/a> O mist\u00e9rio da<\/em> consci\u00eancia<\/em>: do corpo e das emo\u00e7\u00f5es ao conhe<\/span>cimento de si. S\u00e3o Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2005.<\/p>\n DI BIASE, Francisco; AMOROSO, Richard. (orgs.) A revolu\u00e7\u00e3o da<\/em> consci\u00eancia<\/em>: novas descobertas sobre a mente no S\u00e9culo XXI. Petr\u00f3polis: Vozes, 2004.<\/p>\n GUARDINI, Romano.<\/a> La coscienza<\/em>. 4.ed. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1977.<\/span><\/p>\n GURWITSCH, Aron.<\/a> El campo de la conciencia<\/em>: un an\u00e1lisis fenomenol\u00f3gico. Madrid: Alianza, 1979.<\/span><\/p>\n HABERMAS, Jurgen.<\/a> Conciencia moral y acci\u00f3n comunicativa<\/em>. Madrid: Trotta, 2008.<\/span><\/p>\n KENNETH, Overberg. Consci\u00eancia em conflito<\/em>. S\u00e3o Paulo: Paulus, 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n LAIN, Vanderlei.<\/a> Nova consci\u00eancia<\/em>: a autonomia religiosa p\u00f3s-moderna. Recife: Liber<\/span>tas, 2008.<\/p>\n VAZ, Henrique C. L. A crise e verdade da consci\u00eancia moral. S\u00edntese<\/em>, v.25, n.83, 1998. p.461-476.<\/p>\n LONERGAN, Bernard.<\/a> La formazione della coscienza<\/em>. Brescia: La Scuola, 2010.<\/span><\/p>\n MAJORANO, Sabatino.<\/a> A consci\u00eancia<\/em>: uma vis\u00e3o crist\u00e3. Aparecida: Santu\u00e1rio, 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n PRIVITERA, S. Consci\u00eancia. In: COMPAGNONI, F.; PIANA, G.; PRIVITERA, S. (orgs.) <\/span>Dicio<\/span>n\u00e1rio de Teologia Moral<\/em>. S\u00e3o Paulo: Paulus, 1997, pg. 137-153.<\/p>\n SEARLE, John R.<\/a> The mystery of consciousness<\/em>. New York: The New York Review of Books, 1997.<\/span><\/p>\n STRECK, Lenio Luiz. O que \u00e9 isto \u2013 decido conforme minha consci\u00eancia? <\/em>Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2010.<\/span><\/p>\n THOMPSON, William M.<\/a> Christ and consciousness<\/em>: exploring Christ’s contribution to huma<\/span>n consciousness: the origins and development of christian consciousness. New York: Paulist Press, 1977.<\/p>\n