I do not believe these terms are synonyms: “morally evil” and “moral evils”. The former describes the objective act. The latter categorizes the kind of evil emanating from the act.
We agree that an erroneous conviction is an objectively evil act, i.e., a morally evil act. Categorizing the subjective culpability of the actor(s) does not change the morality of the act. One may believe that the evil effect is a moral evil (culpable actor) or physical evil (no one to blame) but that’s a distinction without a difference with respect to the morality of the act.
CCC#1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
I don’t think identical is a correct description. The difference is not dependent on the category of evil, moral or physical, but on the gravity of objective evil effected by the act. For instance, these two acts are not morally identical:
- A traffic court magistrate coerces a $10 fine for a wrongfully issued parking ticket.
- The state executes an innocent person wrongfully convicted of murder.
Perhaps I’m missing the importance of categorizing the type of evil emanating from executing an innocent person. If so can you pinpoint the importance of doing so?