CathInfo.com

In order that a violation of the law constitute an ecclesiastical crime, the violation must be imputable to the delinquent. Imputability is that property of an action in virtue of which it can be attributed to some person as its proper author.

The knowledge postulated for the imputing of an act as criminal to its author includes the knowledge that what is being done is unlawful. The act must proceed from the agent’s free will with advertence in the intellect to its malice. The delinquent must be guilty of a grave sin before God and his own conscience.

The moral order is composed of all those acts which have the property of rightness or wrongness, so that they can be imputed to the author of the act.

The State and Church alike have the right to lay down norms of conduct for the individual. The violation of these norms or laws is a violation of the moral order. If the the law has a penal sanction attached to it, the legislator has deemed the transgression to be a serious violation of the moral order.

It follows that the moral order, and the juridical – including the criminal – order are not separate and distinct. Since the juridical-criminal order is but one part of the moral order, the principles used in the moral order will apply also in the juridical criminal order. The moral order requires that an act be morally imputable to the author of the act if he is to be held responsible for it. The same principle must apply in the juridical-criminal order.

Moral imputability always has reference to the rightness or wrongness of the act. When the action is in conformity with the moral order, or with the norms of morality, it is a good or moral act; it is evil or immoral if it deviates from the norms of morality. It follows that there must be some advertence in the intellect and consent of the will to the goodness or evilness of the action in the performing of the act. If the agent performs an objectively evil act with no advertence to its malice, and with no intention to do evil, the evil cannot be imputed to him.

So, if YOU think he is THINKING heresy then he is, and therefore whatever he did externally is only icing on the cake to prove what was, "going on inside the mind and will of the delinquent."

Is that what you think?