Case 7. An Abuse of Probabilism

Titius, a priest, always instructs and directs the faithful committed to his care according to probable opinions. Hence he preaches that they need not be solicitous about directing their intention to God, for he says it is solidly probable that an intention once had in life and not retracted suffices to give form to all the works of the whole life. Nor, he says, need they be solicitous about gaining indulgences, for the same intention once had and not retracted suffices for gaining any indulgences whatever, provided that the prescribed works are fulfilled, even if the indulgence attached to them is unknown. Hence it is asked:

1. How do probabilism, equiprobabilism, and probabiliorism differ?

2. Is the use of probabilism lawful in every matter?

3. Within the limits of lawful matter, is it always and for everyone better to use probabilism?

4. What is to be said about Titius’s manner of acting?

1. See approved authors. 2. See the answer to this question, p. 54. 3. Even when probabilism may be applied, is it well always to apply it for everybody? No, it is not. There is room for prudence on the part of the confessor as to when a probable opinion is to be used.

The confessor indeed has no legislative authority and can not impose on his penitents an obligation which does not exist. But if the penitent is willing to do what is more generous and more perfect, the confessor should encourage him, and he would act very imprudently if by insisting on a probable and contrary opinion he caused the penitent to adopt a less perfect course of action than he had been prepared to follow. Occasionally when he knows his penitent and thinks that it will be for this benefit, the confessor may laudably urge him to act in a generous way, even though there is no obligation in the matter.

4. What about Titius' way of acting?

It may be hoped that the case is a fictitious one, and that no priest was ever so foolish and ignorant as to misapply probabilism in the way that Titius is said to have done. Probabilism is specially meant to settle doubts of conscience, and for use in the confessional. It is not intended to furnish matter for pastoral instruction and sermons. The preacher and instructor, without exaggerating obligations, should always propose a high ideal to his hearers and exhort them to follow it. As Rodriguez says: “By this discourse we easily see how important it is that in our spiritual exhortations we speak of that only which is perfect in a sovereign degree. If we preach, for example, on humility, it must be that humility which is most profound, and which reaches to contempt of oneself. If we preach on mortification, it must be on that which subjects all our passions to reason; if we preach on conforming our will to God, we must recommend a conformity which leaves us no will but that of the Almighty, which resigns our will entirely to His, and which establishes all its content and joy in the accomplishment of the divine will. . . . Because you are weak I must propose to you the most perfect kind of virtue and devotion, that by your aiming at what is best you may be able to perform at least what is of strict obligation.”¹

1 Practice of Religious Perfection, vol. i, chapter viii.

Titius tells his people that they need not trouble themselves about directing their intention to God, for it is solidly probable that an intention elicited once for all will suffice to direct all the actions of one's life to God if it is not retracted. This is probably true, bearing in mind the clause “if it is not retracted.” But it would most likely be understood to mean that there was no necessity for thinking about God oftener than once in a lifetime, which is, of course, altogether false. Besides it is only an opinion, and those who acted upon it might lose a great deal of merit if it is not the true opinion. Titius adopted the wrong tone in his instructions; he should not be content with the minimum, even if he tells his people what the minimum is, but he should exhort them frequently to renew their intention of pleasing God, so that they may be the more secure and may reap the greater reward.

Titius followed a probable opinion about the intention which is necessary for gaining indulgences, but here again it is only probable; it is not certain that it would suffice for gaining all indulgences as he says. So in this matter also Titius acted imprudently and from a wrong point of view, and he should correct what he said. For it is not certain that probabilism may be used in the matter of indulgences, inasmuch as indulgences are a grant made by the Church on certain conditions, and anyone who wishes to gain them must satisfy the conditions laid down.²

2 Bulot, Compend. Theol. Mor., vol. ii, n. 1002.