20. The theologians give clear direction in these cases, even those not known as strict disciplinarians. For We are not here discussing so-called invincible ignorance of positive law, when the penitent has fallen into some sin known only to the confessor, which could occasion greater evil if the penitent was made aware of it. We are speaking of vincible ignorance, when the penitent either does not know certain actions to be sins, although he should know it, or he is surrounded by circumstances of action which confirm the sinner in evildoing if the confessor passes them by without comment. This would then scandalize others, who could infer that certain acts are permissible from seeing them done without penalty by persons who regularly receive the Church's sacraments. In these cases the opinion of the theologians is unanimous that a confessor must assist the penitent by advice and questioning, even when he sees that this will make the penitent sorrowful. But if at the time the result does not correspond to the advice of the confessor, there is still hope that it will be of benefit later on, since God is helping. Among theologians of the Order of Preachers or of those who accept the teaching of St. Thomas, reference may be made to Solo, in 4. Sententiar., dist. 18, quest. 2, sect. 4, and Silvius, in 3. par. D. Thomae, vol. 4, quest. 9, arts. 2 to 7. Among the students of the Franciscan family and the other disciples of Scotus, Cardinal de Laureaea, in 4. Sentent., vol. 2, de Sacrament. Poeniten., disp. 21, art. 3, n. 64ff. Among the writers of the Society of Jesus: Suarez, in 3. part. D. Thomae, vol. 4, disp. 32, sects. 3 and 4; Theophilus Reynaudus, vol. 16, Heteroclit. spiritual., pt. 9, n. 4; Cardinal Antonius, tract. de Poenitent., art. 3, quest. 3; and Cardinal de Lugo, de Sacram. Poenitent., disp. 22, sect. 2, where in his burning zeal for the salvation of souls he attacks the lazy confessors of bishops, prelates, princes, and governors who, though they hear no self-accusation for sins which are public knowledge, stay silent, and with no exhortation dispense the grace of absolution after a hasty decision.

"In the second place", he says, "I consider what must be said of the obligation of confessors of prelates, princes, governors and suchlike when they see or know that their penitents do not really fulfill their duty in conferring benefits, selecting ministers or in governing their subjects, in giving alms from the excess of the church revenues or the like. In these cases it should be noted that ignorance is seldom invincible and without fault. Also their ignorance is seldom not a scandal to their subjects, who readily believe that what they observe their prelates and princes doing is permissible, or at least not very harmful. Therefore the confessor is obliged to advise all penitents of their obligations. He does not fulfill his function by absolving the sins which the penitent tells him; if he does only this, then he is responsible for what his penitent overlooked. Then as a blind man leading the blind, they both will fall into the eternal pit. So if he trembles in the presence of the powerful, let him not take on himself the office of shepherd, but modestly excuse himself as one less fit to bear that burden". This salutary opinion of Cardinal de Lugo refers not only to those who hear the confessions of bishops and princes. It also binds equally all confessors who hear the confessions of penitents whose morals and example are a proximate occasion of sin, if not of externally sinful actions at least of evil desires and morose delectations, and who in spite of this customarily accommodate themselves to the penitent unaffected by any concern for manifesting the miserable state of a sinful life.