11. On Erroneous Conscience

Florus, making a general confession, accuses himself that, while still a boy, he once or twice had had pollution, and had never confessed it, because at that time he did not think it a sin. He adds besides that, now as an adolescent, he shamefully looked at and touched his cousin, and that he confessed this only generally, omitting the circumstance of the cousin, which he did not think necessary. Moreover he says that he often nourished evil thoughts in his mind, but he did not confess them either, thinking for a long time that sin existed only in the work. Likewise he confesses that, having been called into court, although he had given an oath to tell the truth, he told a lie, yet he judged this altogether necessary for saving a friend from a long and hard imprisonment. Lastly, he confesses that, laboring under a grave illness for a year and more, he omitted Mass and did not observe abstinence and fasting.

Q. 1. What is erroneous conscience, and can one follow it? 2. Whether and how did Florus sin?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 98 seqq. To the second: Florus could absolutely, in boyhood, have been ignorant at first of the malice of pollution. Therefore, if in good faith he did not confess that sin because he had no consciousness of sin, he does not seem to be disturbed. I. M. 110.

Likewise he does not seem to be disturbed on account of the omitted circumstance of the cousin, whose special malice of incest he could more easily have been invincibly ignorant of. But this circumstance changes the species in itself with respect to touches, by no means with respect to looks. I. M. 784.

With respect to evil thoughts, good faith and invincible ignorance are admitted with more difficulty. Nevertheless, if Florus affirms that he was ignorant of this sin of thoughts, the confessor must indeed attend and investigate what kind those thoughts were, and whether Florus believed that from a culpably or inculpably erroneous conscience. For if, after prudent investigation has been made, from the rudeness of Florus his good faith appears, he does not seem to be disturbed in this either with respect to past confessions; but he is only to be instructed if he is still in error. For this must besides be attended to here, that good faith and ignorance can also be rather in fact than in law, that is, it can rather be concerning the consent given to the thoughts than concerning the very malice of evil thoughts, if consent accedes to them. I. M. 108.

From the fact that Florus judged a lie necessary for saving his friend, it does not truly follow that he erred in good faith and by invincible ignorance. Therefore Florus is to be questioned further, since it is a matter of grave perjury because of the added oath: whether in fact he thought that he could then lie, indeed perhaps even that he ought to because of the enormous danger in which his friend was placed.

Lastly, Florus did not sin by omitting Mass while held back by grave illness, since a necessity of sinning is not given. The same must be said of abstinence and fasting not observed for the same reason of infirmity; and although perhaps he omitted Mass and abstinence and fasting when he was already beginning to recover, it indeed seems difficult that he truly persuaded himself that he sinned gravely in this matter, if he had still not in fact recovered sufficiently. - Elbel 124-133; G. 37-42; I. M. 98 seqq.