Acting on a doubtful conscience

[Zynxensar]

What constitutes acting on a doubtful conscience?

If I’m driving a car and reversing into a parking lot, do I have to get out of the car and then ensure that no one is lying down at the parking lot? I didn’t see anyone, but my eyes may be tricking me. I have no way to prove that there isn’t anyone there too. So am I obliged under sin to get out and check to resolve this “doubt”?

Another example:

I purchase a book, but I didn’t know it was stolen. Am I obliged to go to great lengths to ensure that the books were fairly obtained? Would I be acting on a doubtful conscience if I purchased the book without first finding this out?

It seems to me that it is impossible to act with 100% certainty. So I don’t understand what it means to act on a doubtful conscience.

 

[BridgetN]

In Those two examples you do not have to go to those extreme means to ensure such-and-such.
Acting on a doubtful conscience means, example:
You think it’s a Fast day, but your not sure, but you want to eat this snack right now.
You don’t go look it up, to make sure it is or is not a fast day. You eat the snack.
If it had been a fast day, you would have sinned, out of your negligence.

Don’t know if that helps.

 

[edward_george1]

The advice I have for you remains the same:

Stop posting these threads.

Get help from a priest and a counselor in real life.

You will never find peace if you keep seeking answers here; it will be nothing but an endless quest for validation. Get real help in real life and stop posting these threads.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Ron_Conte]

The rule is that you only need moral certitude, not absolute certitude. For a small matter, such as the book, you don’t need to try to find out if it is stolen. For the driving question, you need to act reasonably. It is not reasonable to only drive when you have absolute certitude. You only need to be reasonably certain. People do not generally lie down under cars to get you to drive over them, so you don’t need to check for that.