Chapter XX. Dusious conscience

Dusious conscience means a suspension of our intellect, assenting to neither part of a contradiction. Probabilists use the term “probable opinion” to express what is, in reality, only a doubt, a suspension of judgment.

DIVISIONS OF DOUBT

A. Objective doubt is 1. by its nature either (a) a dubium juris, i.e., is there, or is there not, a law in this matter? or (b) a dubium facti, i.e., is the alleged fact true or not true? or 2. by its universality (a) a speculative doubt (is painting, say, a servile work?) or (b) a practical doubt (am I allowed, say, to read this book here and now?)

B. Subjective doubt is positive doubt, i.e., with serious reason pro and con, or negative doubt, i.e., a mere hesitation, for slight and insufficient reason (e.g., a priest, who conscientiously fulfills his daily office, but cannot recall explicitly whether he said Sext today).

Thesis. We are never allowed to act with a conscience that is practically doubtful. Positive doubts must be removed by reflex principles. This conclusion, held by nearly all Catholic theologians, including the probabilists, is a mere corollary of the preceding conclusion, namely, that to act licitly we need a conscience that is practically certain.

Proofs. 1. “That which does not come from faith (i.e., from persuasion of licitness) is sin.” 2. To act with dubious conscience is a sin against prudence. 3. Such action exposes the agent to the danger of sin.

DUBIOUS CONSCIENCE 315

Corollary. Sin thus committed is of the same species as sin committed with a certain conscience. He who doubts whether his contemplated act is perjury commits the sin of perjury. Interpretatively he wills the sin to which he exposes himself.

But do not scrupulous people often act with fear of sin, and yet do not sin? Answer: Under a fear that is merely speculative and inconsequential, yes. Under a fear that is practical and reasonable, no. Let such victims simply obey their confessors.

HOW TO SOLVE PRACTICAL DOUBTS

Doubt can be solved in two ways: first directly, (by consultation, by reading, by reflection); secondly, if the direct way is impossible, then indirectly, by the aid of reflex principles. But if even this cannot solve the doubt and if action cannot be deferred, then, to exclude the peril of sin, we must choose the safer part, i.e., the part which includes observance of the doubtful law.

THE CHIEF REFLEX PRINCIPLES

Reflex principles are general norms which solve the question, not directly and intrinsically, but indirectly and extrinsically.

First principle. A dubious law does not bind. This principle was exaggerated by the laxists (Caramuel, Diana, Tamburini), who applied it without exception in all the fields of action, whereas more rigid probabilists (many Dominicans of the seventeenth century, and in the cighteenth century Concina and Batuzzi) rejected this principle entirely, The Holy See, under Innocent XI, in the year 1679, before the birth of St. Alphonsus (1696-1787) condemned the application of this principle in four lines of action: first, the validity of the sacraments; secondly, in matters necessary for salvation (acts of faith and charity); thirdly, in dealing with certain rights of a third person; fourthly, when we are bound to avoid grave peril of spiritual or temporal harm, either to ourselves or to others.

With these four exceptions, this principle is a legitimate way of solving practical doubts. Probabilists, indeed, hold that this principle by itself suffices by itself alone, whereas other theologians demand the addition of the principle, that the condition of the possessor is the better. With St. Alphonsus we say that a dubious law does not bind if we are dealing with a doubt in the strict sense, i.e., if there is equal probability that the law was never passed, because in this case liberty is in possession. But equal probability that the law has ceased does not suffice, because then the law is in possession.

Second principle. When there is doubt we must stand on that side where stands the presumption, i.e., arguments and signs which prevail until the contrary is clearly proved. This principle has many equivalent formulas. 1. Man is presumed to be good until he is proved to be evil. 2. Crime is not to be presumed, but to be proved. 3. In doubt, we must favor the accused. 4. In doubt concerning the rectitude of a superior’s command, presumption stands for the superior. 5. In doubt, presumption stands for the validity of the act (for the validity of religious profession if, for instance, the religious begins to doubt whether he had sufficient intention and sufficient knowledge). 6. In doubt, presumption stands for the usual and the ordinary.

Third principle. In doubt the condition of the possessor is the better. This principle, the foundation of aequiprobabilism, taught by St. Alphonsus, finds particular application in the field of justice. Men generally watch over the possessions they are entitled to, and positive law favors the possessor, that lawsuits may not become interminable. Thus far all theologians agree. But the probabilists hold that this principle is valid only in matters of justice, whereas the aequiprobabilists extend it also to other fields.

According to St. Alphonsus, law and liberty can be considered two possessors. The law binds until it ceases to be law.

DUBIOUS CONSCIENCE 317

But liberty acts freely until a new law is promulgated. Thus man is not strictly bound to confess a sin that is dubiously mortal, since liberty is in possession. But if he is certain that the sin is mortal, whereas he doubts seriously that he has ever confessed it, he is bound to confession, because the law of confession is in possession, a law which he does not satisfy by a dubious fulfillment. When liberty is in doubtful possession, the law is certainly in possession, and vice versa.

Subordination of reflex principles. All reflex principles can be reduced to one: Find that line where presumption is in possession. The principle of dubious law holds good only where there is a true presumption for liberty, where, namely, we doubt, not whether the law has ceased, but whether it ever existed. The reflex principle of presumption has many advantages: it is admitted by theologians, it is easily understood by unlettered people, it operates in the civil courts, it was common in all schools before the controversies concerning probabilism, and we may hope, by its aid, to end the interminable quarrels between different moral systems. Now let us put the eight reflex principles in proper subordination.

1. In doubt, stand where stands presumption.

2. In doubt, the condition of the possessor is the better, because there stands presumption.

3. In doubt, favor the accused, because for him stands presumption.

4. In doubt, presumption stands on the side of the superior.

5. In doubt, follow daily and ordinary experience.

6. In doubt, stand for the validity of the act.

7. In doubt, amplify the favorable, restrict the unfavorable.

8. A doubtful law does not bind, i.e., a law that is doubtful in its very existence.

Question. What relation is there between these reflex principles and the doctrine of St. Thomas, who bases conscience on the truth of prudential judgment, which means conformity with right intention? Answer: These reflex principles are useful in establishing this conformity. Conformity with right intention, he says, moves the intellect to due diligence in finding the law and the law’s application to the here and now. Where direct principles are lacking, we fall back on reflex principles, i.c., we ask on what side stands presumption. But what are we to do when all these principles do not go beyond probability? We can still attain practical certitude by conformity with a good and virtuous will. As man is, so man wills. The chaste man judges rightly in matters of chastity. Rectitude in moral sciencé descends in vital manner from right will down to practical judgment, in the here and now.