Case 6. A Conflict of Opinion

Cecilia confesses to Titius, her confessor, various grave sins against the sixth commandment. After making inquiries, he finds that she is in a proximate occasion of sinning against that commandment. When Titius asks whether she can leave that occasion, Cecilia replies that another confessor said that she was not bound to do so, since it is a necessary occasion. After further inquiries, Titius judges this opinion to be altogether false, and that Cecilia can leave that occasion with some inconvenience indeed, but not with grave inconvenience. Nevertheless, he does not know whether he ought to impose the obligation of leaving it, since there is a contrary judgment of another confessor. Hence he asks:

1. Can a penitent with a safe conscience follow the judgment of a confessor?

2. Can a confessor permit a penitent to follow an opinion which the penitent believes probable, but which the confessor judges false?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. May a penitent follow the opinion and direction of his confessor with a safe conscience?

Yes; in general in a case of doubt the penitent may follow the advice of his confessor whom he has reason to believe is a good and prudent man. By consulting his confessor where he can not form his conscience for himself he takes the ordinary means to resolve his doubts. Just as a man consults his lawyer on a point of law and abides usually by his decision, so on a point of morals a penitent is justified in abiding by the advice of his confessor who is presumed to be an expert in matters of Christian morality. Of course exceptions may occur. The penitent may be a well-instructed Catholic and the confessor may be a poorly instructed priest, and it may be that the penitent sees good ground for distrusting the confessor’s opinion on some point; in that case the penitent must follow his own conscience, for his own conscience is his guide in conduct, not that of his confessor.

2. May a confessor permit a penitent to follow an opinion which the penitent thinks probable, but which the confessor thinks is false?

Here we must distinguish. If the opinion in question is recognized as probable by theologians of note, and the penitent wishes to follow their opinion, he has a perfect right to do so, and the confessor has no authority to prevent him. The confessor is a judge of sins and of the dispositions of his penitent, not of theological opinions. If, however, the opinion in question is not recognized as probable by theologians, but is only thought to be so by another confessor and the penitent; and the confessor whose absolution the penitent desires holds it as certain that the opinion is false, the confessor who thinks this can not allow the penitent to follow the opinion in question. For although the confessor is not a judge of theological opinions, yet he is a judge as to whether his penitent is being deceived or not by a false and dangerous delusion.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, book vi, no. 604.

3. The case. Titius finds out from her confession that his penitent Cicily is in a proximate occasion of committing sins against the sixth commandment. Titius asks whether she can avoid the occasion, and she answers that another confessor told her that she was not bound to avoid it as it was necessary. After putting other questions Titius comes to the conclusion that that opinion is altogether false, as in his judgment Cicily can avoid the occasion with some but not great inconvenience. However, he does not know whether he can and should impose this obligation on his penitent. We answer that he should. By hearing Cicily’s confession he accepts the responsibility of directing her, and in his opinion she is under the obligation of avoiding the proximate occasion of sin in which she is placed, and so he should tell her this. He will be justified in refusing absolution if she does not accept his ruling.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, book vi, no. 604.