(a) It is contrary to the teaching of the Gospels and of the Fathers, which requires one to observe the laws of God with understanding and diligence;
(b) It leads to corruption of morals. The Laxists of the seventeenth century were called in derision those “who take away the sins of the world,” and it was against their loose teachings that Pascal inveighed;
(c) Its argument is of no value, for no prudent person would feel that he should follow what was only slightly above the improbable, or that a law should be deemed uncertain because an opinion of uncertain probability could be quoted against it.
682. The true system of reflex principles will lie between the extremes of Tutiorism and Laxism. As already said, these two doctrines have been censured by the Church; but there are other systems that are moderate, and that are permitted by the Church and defended by theologians. These systems are:
(a) Probabiliorism, whose principle is: “When one is undecided between the safer and the less safe, one may choose the less safc only when it is more probable”;
(b) Equiprobabilism, whose doctrine is: “When one is undecided between the safer and the less safe, one may choose the less safe only when it affirms the non-existence of the law, and is at least equally probable with the opposite”;
(c) Probabilism, whose doctrine is: “When one is undecided between the safer and the less safe, one may choose the less safe whenever it is certainly and solidly probable”;
(d) Compensationism, whose doctrine is: “When one is undecided between the safer and the less safe, one may choose the less safe whenever it is certainly and solidly probable, and there is a proportionate reason to compensate for the risk taken.”
683. Probabiliorism.—The arguments in favor of Probabiliorism are as follows:
(a) extrinsic or from authority. This system is more ancient, and, when the controversy over systems began in the seventeenth century, this was the one that was most favored by the Church and theologians;