Chapter 14

Chapter 142,506 wordsCompleted

In the third semester of the seminary, Liudas Vasaris joins the moral‑theology curriculum, which now includes the dense texts De actibus humanis, De peccatis and the notoriously dangerous De sexto et nono. The professor emphasizes that the latter treatise on sins against chastity must be read with great caution, advising frequent prayer and contemplation of Christ’s suffering.

During a lecture, the professor presents a confessional case: a penitent named Kajus comes forward saying “Osculavi Caiam…”. The words are ambiguous, and Vasaris is asked to lead the examination. He first tries to determine whether the act constitutes a material grave sin, a material minor sin, or a non‑material fault. He asks what “Caiam” is, whether it is a person (a maid or a nun), and what the nature of the kiss was. Kajus insists it was merely a friendly kiss after baking good pancakes; Vasaris notes the canonical principle “osculum non ex libidine – nullum peccatum”.

The professor, impatient, repeatedly interrupts, demanding faster answers: “Nu, nu, nu! Pytaj, pytaj!” He presses Vasaris to ask whether the kiss was solely for the pancakes or also for sexual desire, whether it was repeated, and how often. Vasaris eventually asks about the frequency, the presence of spiritual intent, and whether other actions accompanied the kiss. The professor declares that even a “good pancake” does not preclude sin, and chastises Vasaris for being too lenient.

The dialogue turns into a broader discussion of the three conditions required for a mortal sin: cognitio (knowledge), deliberatio (deliberate intent), and liberum consensus (free consent). Vasaris recalls that penitent‑s may try to hide the gravity of their acts by offering partial explanations or ambiguous language, a point the professor stresses. He also mentions that senior students in the class have begun debating whether actions like murder can occur without liberum consensus, illustrating the ongoing philosophical dispute.

Throughout the session, Vasaris feels the weight of the professor’s harshness and the complexity of applying moral‑theological theory to concrete confessions. He leaves the class aware that distinguishing material grave from minor sins is fraught with ambiguity, especially when penitents obscure facts. The chapter ends with Vasaris reflecting on the demanding nature of his studies and the uneasy balance between doctrinal precision and pastoral compassion.