Case 2. Voluntary Ignorance

Albert, a young Catholic who applies himself to the study of medicine with this intention, that after his studies have been completed he may practise the medical art, does not hesitate also to give a great span of time to pleasures. His parents and teachers warn him to prepare himself more diligently for undertaking that rather burdensome state; nevertheless, matters proceed almost as before. At fixed times he undergoes examinations with by no means unhappy success, since he always gives evidence of sufficient learning, although because of laziness he is ignorant of some things in each examination. Finally, at some point, he is admitted to practise the art, and he goes to a certain city in order to seek a livelihood there by his art. He undertakes the care of the sick, and immediately finds himself to be ignorant of many things altogether necessary for him to know, since very often the remedies prescribed by him seem to be of no benefit, and indeed not rarely to increase the disease. After some months he is so distressed by scruples of conscience that he lays open his whole condition to his confessor and asks what is to be done. Hence it is asked:

1. When is ignorance culpable?

2. When a bad act has been performed from invincible ignorance, at what time and in what way is sin committed?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. When is ignorance culpable?

Ignorance is culpable if it concerns what we are bound to know and if it is voluntary. There is no guilt attaching to ignorance about what we are under no obligation to know. Neither can we be blamed for ignorance which we can not help. The degree of culpability for voluntary ignorance about what we are bound to know will depend upon the seriousness of the matter and the degree of voluntariness in the ignorance. If the matter is serious and if there was great negligence in not procuring the requisite knowledge, grave sin will be committed. On the other hand, if either the matter be trivial or the negligence slight, no more than a venial sin will be committed.

2. When a bad action is done out of voluntary ignorance, is the sin committed when the agent culpably neglected to procure knowledge or when the act is done; and of what species is the sin?

Per se, inasmuch as formal sin consists in doing wrong or neglecting duty with advertence, formal sin is committed when the doer of a bad action, which is the result of voluntary ignorance, culpably neglects to procure the requisite knowledge. At the time when the bad action is done through ignorance the doer of it does not advert to the wrong that he is doing, and so the act can not be a formal sin at the time when it is done. Of course if the bad act is not merely the result of ignorance, but at the time when it is done there is some suspicion of its not being right, or some advertence to its malice, then the harm done will not only be voluntary in its cause, but also voluntary in itself. But then it will not be done out of voluntary ignorance, but out of malice here and now.

A sin of ignorance is of the same species as the act done out of ignorance would be if it were committed with knowledge. For the law which is violated by the sin is violated also by voluntary ignorance concerning it, inasmuch as every law imposes on those who are subject to it the obligation of obtaining knowledge of it, and voluntary ignorance is a violation of this obligation.

3. Albert neglected his work when he was a medical student. In spite of warnings from professors and parents he gave a great deal of time to enjoyment. In each examination he managed to show sufficient knowledge to pass, though there were some subjects of which he was ignorant. When he began to practise, he soon found out his deficiencies. His prescriptions often seemed to do harm to his patients instead of good. After some months he became so uneasy that he spoke on the subject to his confessor and asked him what he was to do. After satisfying himself that there are good grounds for Albert’s scruples the confessor should tell him that he must give some time to study now, so as to make up for his idleness in his student days. He knows what subjects he neglected, and he should apply himself to those in the first place. Until he can make up for lost time he should not undertake cases where his ignorance is likely to be an obstacle to his treating them properly. On one pretext or another he may call in some other medical man, and forego his own fees in such cases. If he does what he can in this way, he need not give up his practice, as all serious danger of doing harm will be removed, and he will soon gain the knowledge without which he should not have begun to practise at all. He committed sin in neglecting his studies, and as the matter was serious, nothing less than the lives and health of his patients, and the negligence was apparently grave, the sin was a grave one. He must be sorry for this and resolve to make up for it as far as he can in the future and then he may be absolved.