Feigned Ignorance vs. Unintentional Ignorance

[shocktrooper]

I want to layout my thought before asking my questions, according to my understanding of Catholic theology and morality. The purpose of this exercise is to better understand the Church’s teaching on the condition of “Full Knowledge” as it pertains to Mortal Sin and how it may or may not reduce one’s culpability when committing a sin. I also seek to understand how the below teachings of the Church (according to my understanding) apply to different groups of people, 1) Catholic Christians, 2) Non-Catholic Christians, and 3) Non-Christians.

The first premise I want to start with is the Church’s teaching that the natural moral law is written in the hearts or consciences of ALL MANKIND. So no one is ignorant of the moral law, so it seems.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I read “unintentional ignorance” as being ignorance by someone that is MENTALLY or physically under the age of reason. I am sure there is more to it, and this missing link is part of the reason for this thread.

1859 …Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

The second premise is that the Catholic Church teaches that the immutable moral law that is written in the conscience of every man is written out for us in the 10 Commandments. The Church teaches that all of the 10 Commandments contain matter that is grave.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:
A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.
We know God’s commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

So Divine Revelation and moral conscience speak the same, so this seems to leave no wiggle room for anyone, especially the baptized Christian. Should I even separate people into these three groups, since God’s law is binding on all people regardless of faith? The Catholic Church holds the fullness of God’s truth, so it is and always will be superior in nature to all other faiths, which hold some truth but not all.

The third premise to mention is that the Church teaches that the 10 Commandments run much deeper than they appear on the surface. For instance, if one lusts for another in his heart, then he has committed adultery. If one “hates” his brother in envy or malice, then he has violated the 5th Commandment since sin originates from within the heart. See also CCC 1858 above.

2054 Jesus acknowledged the Ten Commandments, but he also showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. He preached a “righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” as well as that of the Gentiles. He unfolded all the demands of the Commandments. “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill.’ . . . But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

The fourth and last premise to mention is the Church’s teaching on “full knowledge” being a condition for mortal sin.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Now my questions…These questions pertain to only those that have reached the prescribed age of reason for their time and place.

1. If “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man”, CCC 1860, then how can any violation of the 10 Commandments be open to a person having any ignorance? Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge but yet the Church teaches that “no one is ignorant of the principles of the moral law”.
2. How does this affect Catholic Christians who violate the 10 Commandments or the Natural Law when they claim ignorance or they claim they have been scandalized by others in their upbringing? Does not the moral law bind them regardless of the trials or scandals they face?
3. How does this affect Non-Catholic Christians who violate the 10 Commandments or the Natural Law when they claim different beliefs that are contrary to the Natural Law, e.g. the use of contraception, divorce and remarriage, which is grave matter and is contrary to the Natural Law? Does not the moral law bind them regardless of the trials or scandals they face?

…CONTINUED IN FOLLOWING COMMENT

 

[shocktrooper]

1. How does this affect Non-Christians who share the same Moral and Natural Law as Christians but violate one or all of the first three Commandments? If each of the 10 Commandments are also the Natural Law, then can they claim ignorance of who God is once they reach the age of reason? Idolatry or not honoring the Lord’s Day comes to mind when I ask this question.
2. How does the Church say…

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

And then says this…

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

What am I missing?

1. What does the Church mean by “unintentional ignorance”?
2. What does the Church mean by “full knowledge”? What constitutes “full”? I would think “full” knowledge would belong to God alone. Has the word “full” always preceded “knowledge” in the Church’s teaching on sin that violates the natural law or the 10 Commandments? And could this simply be the Church stating that “full knowledge” is simply a condition that is always met when it comes to the natural or moral law, or the Decalogue? This is what it sounds like to me since it clarifies that “unintentional ignorance” does not apply to anyone when it comes to the principals of the moral law.

I apologize for the long post and thank you in advance for comments offered.

Pax Christi!

 

[BillP]

You issue seems to be that you equate “knowledge” with “understanding”.

We do not always comprehend the full implications of the knowledge that we have. Just a couple of examples:

A perfect example is your cite of Jesus’ explication of the commandment against killing.
Unjustified Killing is wrong, and each individual may be presumed to have that basic value 'written on his heart" by the Natural Law.

PERSON #1: “Shouldn’t go around killing people…check, got it, it feels right and makes sense”.

Then Jesus says:

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill.’ . . . But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

PERSON #1: “HOLY ****!, I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense…”

Before Jesus brought the full implications of “thou shalt not kill” to his attention, he was unintentionally ignorant of them, while still being cognizant of the basic value.

Another example is that mere exposure to information doesn’t always impart knowledge. We often are exposed to information that we simply don’t believe or don’t fully “take on-board” in those cases, we are still deemed to be “unintentionally ignorant” of the knowledge despite being exposed to the information.

For example, there are valid scientific studies demonstrating that driving while talking on a cell-phone (with or without a hands-free) is as dangerous as driving while slightly above the legal Blood Alcohol Level limit and the results of these studies have been widely disseminated in the media. Yet almost everyone still drives while talking on their cell-phone because they don’t actually believe the studies because it doesn’t “feel” dangerous to them. Again, this is “unintentional ignorance”.

 

[shocktrooper]

You issue seems to be that you equate “knowledge” with “understanding”.

Bill, thank you for responding. I really do appreciate your feedback.

Maybe you are right, I may have a problem differentiating the two since I kind of see them as being the same. But I think my problem is more to do with “full” and not full.

We do not always comprehend the full implications of the knowledge that we have. Just a couple of examples:

A perfect example is your cite of Jesus’ explication of the commandment against killing.
Unjustified Killing is wrong, and each individual may be presumed to have that basic value 'written on his heart" by the Natural Law.

PERSON #1: “Shouldn’t go around killing people…check, got it, it feels right and makes sense”.

Then Jesus says:

PERSON #1: “HOLY ****!, I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense…”

Before Jesus brought the full implications of “thou shalt not kill” to his attention, he was unintentionally ignorant of them, while still being cognizant of the basic value.

Yes, I have said similar things as PERSON 1. Like a bulb goes off, if you will, and knowledge or understanding is enlightened. But was my laziness or lack of interest prior to this enlightening not my doing? Can anyone honestly claim that the teachings of Christ have not been spread from one end of the earth to another? Has the mission of the Church failed? Has the Bride failed her Bridegroom? This affects all people, not just Christians. We are all bound to the Truth, because of the moral enlightenment Christ brought. How does this affect each group mentioned in the original post?

Another example is that mere exposure to information doesn’t always impart knowledge. We often are exposed to information that we simply don’t believe or don’t fully “take on-board” in those cases, we are still deemed to be “unintentionally ignorant” of the knowledge despite being exposed to the information.

This I don’t necessarily agree with. What constitutes “unintentional ignorance”? The Church does not, AFAIK, give us an example. She only states that one “by no fault of their own” are invincibly ignorant. Is not one that heard something and then denied it responsible for their choice regardless of the exuse? For example, if I am driving on the side wrong side of the road because I just did not “know” (take on-board) the rules even though I “knew” (heard and was taught) the rules, then will I not be held liable to the law when confronted or pulled over? Even though my parents told me that driving against traffic was better because I can see things coming easier?

Thanks.

 

[thistle]

Bill, thank you for responding. I really do appreciate your feedback.

Maybe you are right, I may have a problem differentiating the two since I kind of see them as being the same. But I think my problem is more to do with “full” and not full.

Yes, I have said similar things as PERSON 1. Like a bulb goes off, if you will, and knowledge or understanding is enlightened. But was my laziness or lack of interest prior to this enlightening not my doing? Can anyone honestly claim that the teachings of Christ have not been spread from one end of the earth to another? Has the mission of the Church failed? Has the Bride failed her Bridegroom? This affects all people, not just Christians. We are all bound to the Truth, because of the moral enlightenment Christ brought. How does this affect each group mentioned in the original post?

This I don’t necessarily agree with. What constitutes “unintentional ignorance”? The Church does not, AFAIK, give us an example. She only states that one “by no fault of their own” are invincibly ignorant. Is not one that heard something and then denied it responsible for their choice regardless of the exuse? For example, if I am driving on the side wrong side of the road because I just did not “know” (take on-board) the rules even though I “knew” (heard and was taught) the rules, then will I not be held liable to the law when confronted or pulled over? Even though my parents told me that driving against traffic was better because I can see things coming easier?

Thanks.

You mentioned what invincible ignorance is. That of course applies to non-Catholics.
On the other hand Catholics can be vincibly ignorant, i.e. unaware of a particular Church teaching.

 

[shocktrooper]

You mentioned what invincible ignorance is. That of course applies to non-Catholics.
On the other hand Catholics can be vincibly ignorant, i.e. unaware of a particular Church teaching.

Thistle, it makes since that “Invincible Ignorance” would not apply to Catholics; I never thought of it as simple as that. However, couldn’t you extend this thought to apply to ALL properly baptized Christians since we are all infused with the same Holy Spirit? If not, why? Would it be because of the lack of the other Sacraments (Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation)?

Also, not being invincibly ignorant should be a great concern for those who are “unaware of a particular Church teaching”, correct?

God bless.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, it makes since that “Invincible Ignorance” would not apply to Catholics; I never thought of it as simple as that. However, couldn’t you extend this thought to apply to ALL properly baptized Christians since we are all infused with the same Holy Spirit? If not, why? Would it be because of the lack of the other Sacraments (Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation)?

Also, not being invincibly ignorant should be a great concern for those who are “unaware of a particular Church teaching”, correct?

God bless.

Sadly, many Catholics consider that ignorance is bliss when actually it is not.
It is incumbent on all Catholics to learn the teachings of the Church. Those that do not because they are lazy or those who deliberately refuse to learn them will be held accountable for any sins of grave matter they committed even though they did not know they were of grave matter at the time.
For those who make the effort to learn what the Church teaches but are unaware of some teachings (I mean even I don’t know the CCC by heart) any sin of grave matter they committed (but they did not know the Church taught that was of grave matter) would not be a mortal sin.

 

[jwinch2]

I read “unintentional ignorance” as being ignorance by someone that is MENTALLY or physically under the age of reason. I am sure there is more to it, and this missing link is part of the reason for this thread.

Aquinas is probably the best source on this topic. You will find much of what you are looking for by reading his works on the subject.

Unintentional ignorance is typically taught in moral theology as someone who is not aware that there is teaching on a particular topic. For example, a Catholic who was poorly catechized may not be aware of Church teaching on something of grave importance, through no fault of their own. Another option is someone who was not born into the Catholic Church and thus, does not have the benefit of being taught the truth of the Faith. Aquinas states that persons in this situation who do not follow Church teaching are not necessarily condemned by their actions, but neither are they rewarded. The presumption is made that these people would want seek out and follow proper teaching if they knew it existed.

Willful ignorance would be those who are aware that there is Church teaching on a particular topic, but refuse to seek it out so that they learn it. This action, barring repentance, will earn condemnation.

Rejection is the act of those who know what the Church teaches on an issue, but reject the teaching and choose to believe and do otherwise. Obviously, this earns one condemnation.

Peace,

 

[aragonjohn1]

1. How does this affect Non-Christians who share the same Moral and Natural Law as Christians but violate one or all of the first three Commandments? If each of the 10 Commandments are also the Natural Law, then can they claim ignorance of who God is once they reach the age of reason? Idolatry or not honoring the Lord’s Day comes to mind when I ask this question.
2. How does the Church say…

And then says this…

What am I missing?

1. What does the Church mean by “unintentional ignorance”?
2. What does the Church mean by “full knowledge”? What constitutes “full”? I would think “full” knowledge would belong to God alone. Has the word “full” always preceded “knowledge” in the Church’s teaching on sin that violates the natural law or the 10 Commandments? And could this simply be the Church stating that “full knowledge” is simply a condition that is always met when it comes to the natural or moral law, or the Decalogue? This is what it sounds like to me since it clarifies that “unintentional ignorance” does not apply to anyone when it comes to the principals of the moral law.

I apologize for the long post and thank you in advance for comments offered.

Pax Christi!

that is why the church teaches that " since the law of God … every heart… one can be saved through the church if that person lives a “good” life and/or has ignorance of some law of God’s church pertaining to matters of salvation"

and

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),” “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation”

• staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm

hope this helps

Shalom
God Bless

 

[underacloud]

Here is an excellent article by apologist James Akin regarding ignorance:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

This article describes the different types of ignorance and how different degrees of diligence (in determining truth) may be considered appropriate. It also addresses specifically the issue of non-Christians.

While moral law is written in each person’s heart, it is also clear that our understanding of the moral law is shaped by teaching. People who are not of the Catholic faith remain ignorant of specific matters of morality, having been taught differently within their own faith, if at all. Even Catholics, who have been taught poorly, can remain innocently ignorant of matters of faith.

 

[Pug]

Can a Catholic have invincible ignorance? I say yes. It sounds like there is some thought here that the answer is no.

There are several types of ignorance, one of which is ignorance of fact. I see no reason why this can’t happen to a Catholic. Say the army tells me my husband died in battle, produces a coffin and a funeral with honors, etc., but they are lying, and I remarry. I have no reason to think I am committing adultery. It is invincible. Ordinary and reasonable prudence tells me my husband is dead and that I have no reason to go investigating the subject.

It is true that it might be possible to discover the husband alive in a POW camp in some foreign country, but you would never look. Invincible means that you have made the reasonable and prudent effort to be sure, as required by the situation. It does not mean you have to spend the rest of your life looking for your husband, whom you have no reason to think you’ll find, traveling through many foreign countries leaving your children with relatives, spending many years, prior to remarrying.

So, I think invincible ignorance can apply to a Catholic.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Here is an excellent article by apologist James Akin regarding ignorance:

While moral law is written in each person’s heart, it is also clear that our understanding of the moral law is shaped by teaching. People who are not of the Catholic faith remain ignorant of specific matters of morality, having been taught differently within their own faith, if at all. Even Catholics, who have been taught poorly, can remain innocently ignorant of matters of faith.

Exactly:thumbsup:

Shalom

 

[shocktrooper]

Here is an excellent article by apologist James Akin regarding ignorance:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

This article describes the different types of ignorance and how different degrees of diligence (in determining truth) may be considered appropriate. It also addresses specifically the issue of non-Christians.

While moral law is written in each person’s heart, it is also clear that our understanding of the moral law is shaped by teaching. People who are not of the Catholic faith remain ignorant of specific matters of morality, having been taught differently within their own faith, if at all. Even Catholics, who have been taught poorly, can remain innocently ignorant of matters of faith.

This was a very good article. Thank you for providing the link.

In the article I noticed he used “adequate” instead of “full” when discussing the conditions of mortal sin. This was one of my questions in my opening posts. This is what he wrote…

Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.

In my original posts, I questioned the use of “full” and how this may seem much or always leave room for the excuse…“well I did not REALLY REALLY KNOW”. Adequate knowledge seems to be a better word to use but the CCC uses “full”, so it seems like we have to go will “full”, correct?

Thanks.

 

[shocktrooper]

While moral law is written in each person’s heart, it is also clear that our understanding of the moral law is shaped by teaching. People who are not of the Catholic faith remain ignorant of specific matters of morality, having been taught differently within their own faith, if at all. Even Catholics, who have been taught poorly, can remain innocently ignorant of matters of faith.

Shalom

So if above is true, then what would be the point of Christ’s warning to those that lead a little one astray? If the child or person was not REALLY lead astray, then why warn the one who supposedly lead astray another with suffering and death. It is clear that scandal and poor teaching actually leads people astray. This means they are not in the flock if they are “astray”, correct? To me, it seems like too many people like to defer to playing the invincibly ignorant card, or baptism of desire card without reasonable reasons for doing so. As far as I know, the Church has never linked it’s teaching on other people of other faiths being saved to Her teaching of baptism of desire. This seems to have been a link created by some trying to interpret Vatican II’s teaching.

I don’t know of any Magisterial teaching that says, those of other faiths seeking God are saved by Baptism of Desire. If there is one, can someone please point me to it?

God bless.

 

[Newbie2]

Can a Catholic have invincible ignorance? I say yes. It sounds like there is some thought here that the answer is no.

There are several types of ignorance, one of which is ignorance of fact. I see no reason why this can’t happen to a Catholic. Say the army tells me my husband died in battle, produces a coffin and a funeral with honors, etc., but they are lying, and I remarry. I have no reason to think I am committing adultery. It is invincible. Ordinary and reasonable prudence tells me my husband is dead and that I have no reason to go investigating the subject.

It is true that it might be possible to discover the husband alive in a POW camp in some foreign country, but you would never look. Invincible means that you have made the reasonable and prudent effort to be sure, as required by the situation. It does not mean you have to spend the rest of your life looking for your husband, whom you have no reason to think you’ll find, traveling through many foreign countries leaving your children with relatives, spending many years, prior to remarrying.

So, I think invincible ignorance can apply to a Catholic.

The equivalent would be someone who was poorly catechized and had nobody explain or demonstrate the importance of knowledge of Church teaching. Unusual situation, perhaps, but entirely possible.

 

[Pug]

In my original posts, I questioned the use of “full” and how this may seem much or always leave room for the excuse…“well I did not REALLY REALLY KNOW”. Adequate knowledge seems to be a better word to use but the CCC uses “full”, so it seems like we have to go will “full”, correct?

I think we can use either, depending on the point of reference. Two different tanks of gas hold different amounts, yet they are both called full. So when they use “full”, it probably is relative to a particular thing. Whatever the tank of knowledge is for mortal sin, that tank must be full. But God would always have more knowledge of the wrongness of the action than us, so even if we qualify as “full”, our understanding is not perfect by any means. Thus in comparison to “perfect” the full tank is adequate.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Those that do not because they are lazy or those who deliberately refuse to learn …

For those who make the effort to learn what the Church teaches …

I see the distinction you’re making, but how do we define “how much” effort one puts in, to see if it’s sufficiently enough that they are excused for what they don’t know?

For example, what if they follow all the precepts of the Church, say the Rosary and read from the Bible and Catechism, one hour a day. Would that be enough? What about Rosary and reading hour every week? Month? Year? What is they spent six hours a week on CAF learning what they can, does that count? What about six hours a year?

My point is that I think you are making a “digital” distinction on an “analog” process, so there has to be some guidelines for the dividing line. In fact, since there are so many ways to “study” that it seems trying to establish a deterministic rule would be prohibitively complex. I’m interested in how you would determine whether a person “qualifies for the exemption,” so to speak.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The equivalent would be someone who was poorly catechized and had nobody explain or demonstrate the importance of knowledge of Church teaching. Unusual situation, perhaps, but entirely possible.

I can relate to this. When I was in Catholic grade school for 8 years circa 1970, I was taught virtually nothing about Church Teachings, except how to behave at Mass. The rest of religion class was a bunch of feel-good stories, self-esteem building, and social issues.

So you’d think going to Catholic school, and being taught by nuns for eight years, I would know something. Never from the pulpit or even in the church bulletin, were we challenged or advised to look up certain Bible passages or read from the CCC. And it didn’t occur to me, because I was doing everything I knew that I was supposed to be doing. And when the CCC came out I looked at it and was totally overwhelmed… :hypno:

Until I started at CAF eight years ago. In one typical month on CAF, I learn more about Catholic teachings than I did in the previous 45 years as a Cradle Catholic and Catholic school alumnus.

So I guess that means I no longer have an excuse, eh?

Alan

 

[shocktrooper]

I think we can use either, depending on the point of reference. Two different tanks of gas hold different amounts, yet they are both called full. So when they use “full”, it probably is relative to a particular thing. Whatever the tank of knowledge is for mortal sin, that tank must be full. But God would always have more knowledge of the wrongness of the action than us, so even if we qualify as “full”, our understanding is not perfect by any means. Thus in comparison to “perfect” the full tank is adequate.

So “full knowledge” does not mean that one has to fully make the teaching their own and accept it completely? That is how I perceive it. It seems that if one is told that such and such is wrong (10 Commandments), and then they say, “yeah, for you maybe but I have no problem doing it, the Church is wrong”, then that person is still held culpable and meets that condition for mortal sin.

 

[Pug]

So “full knowledge” does not mean that one has to fully make the teaching their own and accept it completely?

No. To be on the hook for mortal sin you don’t have to have made the teaching your own and fully understand why it is wrong and think this teaching is the cat’s meow. You just have to know it is seriously wrong. Even if one thinks the whole contraception thing logically seems absurd, you are still on the hook if you accept the moral authority of the Church and you know what she teaches on the subject of contraception. (I just use this as an example. I don’t want to talk about contraception.) Such a person knows it is wrong, but doesn’t yet “get it” personally.

Of course, one ought to strive to understand the truth. We ought not content ourselves that we’ve learned enough in life so we get to be done with knowing more. But with some teachings we need to pray and wait for understanding.

That is how I perceive it. It seems that if one is told that such and such is wrong (10 Commandments), and then they say, “yeah, for you maybe but I have no problem doing it, the Church is wrong”, then that person is still held culpable and meets that condition for mortal sin.

People who don’t accept the authority that told them it is wrong may or may not be on the hook (for mortal sin). It depends on a variety of factors. If they were raised Catholic with decent religious education, the chances that they ought to know better rise noticeably.