§ 1. On The Advertence Required For A Human Act

Divisions. Advertence, which is the act by which the mind attends to something, is distinguished:

36. 1. Full and half-full. Full advertence is that by which a man capable of the use of reason perfectly notices the things which he does. Half-full is called that in which, because of some obstacle, the mind does not fully advert to the act or its morality. Thus, for example, actions are wont to occur with half-full advertence during drowsiness.

2. Distinct and confused. The first is that by which a man clearly and distinctly perceives the act and its morality; for example, if one committing incest clearly knows that a twofold malice is included in this act. The other is that by which a man indeed adverts that he is acting badly or well, but does not clearly distinguish the morality of the act.

3. Actual and virtual. The first is that by which a man actually attends both to the physical act and to its morality. The other is that which indeed is not actually present, but could and morally ought to have been present; because of an obstacle, however, the mind does not fully advert to the act.

37. Principle. Virtual advertence (which by some is less correctly called interpretative) certainly suffices so that some act can truly be called human.

The reason is that although virtual advertence is physically actual inadvertence, nevertheless morally (by force of advertence and of an actual intention previously had) it truly flows into the act and causes it so that it occurs according to the free intention of the agent. From this three things follow:

1. Virtual advertence suffices for constituting a venial sin. Thus all.

2. Virtual advertence suffices for the valid administration of sacraments. Thus again all; at least if the sacrament of matrimony is excepted, in which not unsuitably actual advertence is required by some in the contracting parties, who are the ministers of this sacrament.

3. Virtual advertence suffices for true prayer and notably for the divine office. Thus also all. - As a general rule it can be held: Other things being equal, the degree of the morality of the act is measured by the degree of advertence. Whence the less advertence there is, the less voluntary is the act thus arisen. And concerning the morality of acts committed with actual inadvertence, that which the Angelic Doctor writes concerning ignorance is valid - for inadvertence is nothing other than actual ignorance: "Because every sin is voluntary, ignorance can diminish sin insofar as it diminishes the voluntary. But if it does not diminish the voluntary, in no way does it diminish sin."²

It was disputed between Patuzzi and St. Alphonsus whether virtual advertence would suffice even for mortal sin, or whether actual advertence would be required.³ Yet there seems not to be so great a real difference between the disputants. For among all it is agreed that perfect cognition and perfect liberty are required for mortal sin, and therefore, if either one is lacking, mortal sin is not present. Therefore the question remains whether virtual advertence is still sufficiently perfect cognition. Theoretically speaking, a negative response must be given, since virtual advertence is truly actual lack of consideration and distraction of mind, which certainly are incompatible with perfect cognition. But practically speaking, one must first investigate whether actual inadvertence is indirectly willed and gravely culpable or not, for example, because of culpable negligence or passion or an evil habit. But if it is indirectly willed and culpable, it certainly suffices for mortal sin. Hence, for example, he who has a habit (not retracted) of blaspheming, even if here and now while blaspheming he does not attend to the malice of this act, nevertheless sins gravely. The reason is that he who knowingly does not fight against an evil habit of blaspheming foresees with moral certainty that he will often break out into blasphemies with or without actual advertence. But if he does not prevent this, all following acts of blasphemy are truly mortal sins, because they are indirectly willed. On the contrary, a good Catholic who is accustomed diligently to observe ecclesiastical laws, if from inadvertence he eats meat on Friday, sins in no way.

² S. theol. I-II, q. 76, a. 4. Billuart treats this whole question concerning inadvertence very well, De peccat. diss. 5, a. 6.

³ Cf. Patuzzi, Eth. christ. tract. 2, c. 3, and St. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 5, n. 4, who explains the true doctrine very well.

38. Note. According to the diverse actual advertence of the mind, acts of three kinds are customarily distinguished: 1. first-first acts, which precede all advertence;⁴ 2. second-first acts, which proceed with half-full advertence, for example, acts which occur in drowsiness, when a man neither sleeps perfectly nor is perfectly awake; 3. second acts, which proceed from perfect advertence.

⁴ Cf. above, n. 26.