Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 36
The Teenage Dissent of Newman and Unamuno:
Conscience as a Safeguard Against Coercive Manipulation
Kevin B. Fagan, Ph.D.
California State University, San Luis Obispo
Abstract
Teenagers seem easy targets for despotic groups, such as cults. Moral
conscience, however, may be a dike against a sea of despotism. John Henry
Newman and Miguel de Unamuno were giant defenders of conscience in their
respective cultures. Their philosophies and phenomenologies of conscience
depict conscience as supreme in the mind of the ordinary person, though
subject to pressures, even death. This notion becomes alive in the deep
religious crisis and conversion of their adolescence, marked by a sense of
personal divine experience, confidence in final predestination or holy trust,
and an ethical commitment. Both men, however, dissent from their religious
authorities and doctrines within an environment of academic freedom,
individual study, and limited coercion. Hence, the interplay of friends and
environments along with personal dedication are essential to our
understanding of the role of conscience as a safeguard against coercive
manipulation, above all in the lives of youth. This article illuminates these
themes by examining the teenage years of these two great philosophical and
literary figures.
A key concern for all who are apprehensive about authoritarian mind manipulation and
totalitarian group control is the penchant for manipulative organizations to focus on young
people to achieve their purposes. Given their innocence and idealism, teenagers are
attractive prey to wolves dressed as pastors, gurus, political leaders, psychotherapists, or
even charismatic salesmen. I contend that against this sea of despotism, conscience can
serve as an ethical dike, safeguarding individuality and personal responsibility. Moreover,
reflecting upon the role of conscience in the young may help us better understand how to
help our cherished children defend themselves against the lure of cultic groups.
This essay focuses on a philosophical theory and a phenomenological analysis that proposes
the supremacy of conscience over religious authority in young people, as understood and
lived by the famed Catholic convert, John H. Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) and the
prominent Spanish dissenter from Catholicism, Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936). Whereas
Newman is considered a champion of intellectual Catholicism in the English-speaking world,
Unamuno is oft the supporter of academic dissent in the Hispanic diaspora. Newman
followed conscience to embrace Catholicism, while Unamuno, as a ―lone heretic‖ (Rudd),
sincerely abandoned the Catholic Church of his childhood. However, both shared the
conviction of courageously following conscience above authority, paying a high price with
their careers and confreres.
John Henry Newman sees conscience as both natural and open to change. Conscience is
defined as a moral sense of right and wrong, independent of any authority, which may, in
life, become distorted and even seem to die due to abusive environments. If conscience is
independent of any source of authority, does that mean that the content of conscience, of

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 37
the sense of right and wrong, is initially independent of authority? I think Newman's answer
to this question is "yes." Conscience, then, rests on an impulse to adhere to the perceived
truth that there is right and wrong. Adhering to this truth results in an enduring recognition
of the existence of "right" and "wrong," although the content of right and wrong will change
and the capacity to choose to follow right or wrong remains. The "moral sense of right and
wrong," then, relies on the passionate adherence to truth. The lesson for the cultist is to
"follow truth," to shun lies, especially those made in order to please or placate those in all
kinds of authority, but especially that which is purportedly divine?
Let us address Newman‘s theory of conscience in his main philosophical work, An Essay in
Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Then, see how this theory played out in Newman's teenage
years. Finally, let us contrast Newman with Unamuno‘s parallel experience of teenage
dissent from religious authority.
To prove his point that there is ―an instinct of the mind recognizing an external Master in
the dictate of conscience,‖ Newman sketches in An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent a
phenomenology of conscience in the mind of a child, or rather, an ordinary child, as he
says. There is an ―impulse of nature,‖ which recognizes a Moral Governor in our
consciousness of right and wrong. Without using the word ―innate,‖ Newman does see a
―spontaneous reception‖ of the link between the sense of wrong and its religious component
as an offense against God. A child who has offended his parents will ―alone and without
effort‖ place himself in the presence of God and beg of Him to set him right with them. The
importance of this phenomenology of religion in a child is to prove the ―connatural‖
character of conscience in every person from infancy. Such a phenomenon is present in
every human being prior both in time and authority to all future authority (103-07).
Newman also applies this to other religious authorities. All divine authorities such as
revealed religion and churches based thereupon have their authority in God speaking to
conscience. This is because conscience relates directly to God as the source of the authority
of revelation and religious authority. Hence, revelation, written and verbal, is accepted by
the individual precisely as a message and mandate from God, only and in so far as it has,
and is recognized in conscience to have, authority from God in that specific mandate. In
fact, at the end of his phenomenology of natural conscience, Newman states how ―this vivid
apprehension of religious objects ...is independent of the written records of any divine
Revelation it does not require any knowledge of Scripture, nor of the history or teaching of
any Church‖ (107).
Religious belief is a great ―addition‖ of fullness and exactness to our mental image of the
divine personality and attributes (107). Conscience is therefore prior to and independent of
authority, like that of a child‘s consciousness of God, which is prior to, and independent of
their parents‘ authority and teaching. Later on, for the believer, conscience will follow God
prior to and independent of any religious authority. Religious authority for the believer,
therefore, only has force in so far as it is recognized in conscience to have divine authority.
Hence, conscience is both chronologically and naturally prior to authority, since, according
to Newman, God is first known directly by conscience.
Here we have the force and weight of conscience, as Newman will later defend it. It is
neither the rule of pride against authority, nor blind acceptance of human authority, but
rather obedience to a ―kindly Light,‖ where there is ―one step enough for me‖ (Verses 156).
This natural link between God and duty, as brought out in the Grammar of Assent, in each
one‘s conscience from childhood sets the stage for a reading of Newman's adolescence,
considering Newman as ―an ordinary child‖ (103-07). However, Newman also sees the
possibility of conscience dying out:
Whether its elements, latent in the mind, would ever be elicited without
extrinsic help is very doubtful but whatever be the actual history of the first