How do you define "Innocently Ignorant"

[gelsbern]

I have seen a couple of threads where the phrase “innocently ignorant” was used and I would like to see how people define it.

 

[Parabol]

If someone lived in a remote place on Earth where they were never exposed to the teachings of Christ or the notion of One God they shouldn’t be blamed for not believing in God. (Won’t be sent to hell?)

Of couse, with modern media and communication and all the missionary work, such places are difficult to find.

 

[Corki]

I have usually heard it phrased “invincibly ignorant”. This generally means that a person did not know and was therefore not responsible.

The remote living situation is one example. More often, I have heard it with regard to what is a sin. For example, if you are a teenager, whose parents got you baptized but never took you to CCE or to Mass, you would not have a way to know that it was a sin to miss Mass. You would not be culpable for the sin of missing Mass.

I have also heard it wrongly attributed to married couples and contraception. They claim they were never told it was a sin. They might truly not have known but they should have known so they are vincibly ignorant (culpable) rather than invincibly so, IMHO.

 

[Dauphin]

Innocent ignorance is simply lack of knowledge for which one is not culpable (ie. ignorant through no fault of your own). It’s a bit broader than invincible ignorance, which means ignorance which is impossible to overcome.

Innocent ignorance is more accurate in describing the condition necessary for an implicit baptism of desire, since vincible ignorance can in certain cases be innocent. For example, it may be strictly possible for a person living on an isolated South Pacific island to learn of Christ by building a raft and floating to a Christian land. However, this is not a reasonable expectation, and so a person would not be culpable for their failure to do this (thus, their ignorance is innocent).

 

[gelsbern]

Innocent ignorance is simply lack of knowledge for which one is not culpable (ie. ignorant through no fault of your own). It’s a bit broader than invincible ignorance, which means ignorance which is impossible to overcome.

Innocent ignorance is more accurate in describing the condition necessary for an implicit baptism of desire, since vincible ignorance can in certain cases be innocent. For example, it may be strictly possible for a person living on an isolated South Pacific island to learn of Christ by building a raft and floating to a Christian land. However, this is not a reasonable expectation, and so a person would not be culpable for their failure to do this (thus, their ignorance is innocent).

Is it possible that a person could have been brought up catholic, or some other christian faith, and through being poorly catechized or never learning about Catholicism that they could also be considered innocently ignorant?

I had heard of invincibly ignorant. I am just curious of this new phrase.

 

[Genesis315]

–when in God’s judgment a particular soul is not guilty for lacking some particular knowledge.

 

[Pug]

Innocent ignorance is simply lack of knowledge for which one is not culpable (ie. ignorant through no fault of your own). It’s a bit broader than invincible ignorance, which means ignorance which is impossible to overcome.

I’ve never quite thought of invincible ignorance as necessarily truly impossible to overcome. Rather, I think of it as referring to knowledge that due diligence does not remedy. Maybe it turns out that I could have arrived at the right answer if I’d sought an audience with my bishop to glean information, but that is not reasonable for most information requests. Usually we aren’t required to seek such a high level of answer before deciding to proceed with our actions.

 

[Benedict108]

I had heard of invincibly ignorant. I am just curious of this new phrase.

Pius IX has enunciated the principle for us very clearly: “Those who are hampered by invincible ignorance about our Holy Religion, and, keeping the natural law, with its commands that are written by God in every human heart, and being ready to obey him, live honourably and uprightly, can, with the power of Divine light and grace helping them, attain eternal life. For God, who clearly sees, searches out, and knows
the minds, hearts, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his great goodness and mercy does not by any means suffer a man to be punished with eternal torments, who is not guilty of voluntary fault.” It may be added that invincible ignorance is defined as
"that which has not been capable of being overcome or removed by reasonable care; whether because no thought or doubt concerning such matters ever entered the mind; or because, even if such a thought had come into the mind, this ignorance could not
have been overcome or removed by the use of reasonable and common care, nor could a knowledge of the truth have been obtained."

Excerpt taken from: The Beliefs of Catholics by Ronald Knox

I hope this helps to expand its meaning a bit more.

Pax.

 

[Dauphin]

Is it possible that a person could have been brought up catholic, or some other christian faith, and through being poorly catechized or never learning about Catholicism that they could also be considered innocently ignorant?.

If the ignorance was of a truth necessary for salvation, and could have been overcome by some reasonable effort, then no.

 

[panoikei]

As a young man, my mother was Protestant, non-practicing most of my youth. I moved with my father (really my grandparents in an adjacent state). We started to attend mass weekly only after I nearly died from my older brother giving me mushroom tea. I’m NOT a druggy - never was and only got involved in this because of my older brother who was really over the top trying to lure me down bad paths. I really believe he wanted to kill me. He ended up taking his own life as an adult. My younger brother tried to take his life twice that I know about. Both times he was drunk. In my case I wanted to serve God with all my heart. I went to first confession and received Holy Communion. However, within 6 months my dad and stepmom began another painful road down divorce where I ended up moving to the country - Southern Baptist, Pentecostal and Assemblies of God country. The Catholic Church was very small in the area, mission territory. I went from one extreme to the other. I read all I could read as I knew to, Learned most of my faith from reading bible, still planted in my heart/mind from my Protestant youth upbringing. Keep in mind that I was baptized as an infant and raised in an invironment where believier’s baptism was prevelant. I moved back to live with Grandparents my senior year, decided I felt called to the priesthood and had to get confirmed above the normal age. I really didn’t know what confirmation was. Afterwards I went to the seminary and experienced lots of bad examples. I mean bad bad. No longer allowed to act as a priest kind of bad. I was so confused because of all the mixed up stuff I learned. I was so frustrated that I wanted to nail down what we should believe. Long story short. I left about 9 years later, received a believer’s baptism, lived a very devoutly Christian life, married outside the Church thinking I was licitly married to come to a full turnaround when I discovered all the flaws in our bibile only Christian faith. They had bad examples too. Somehow I came to believe that if they are truly Christian they will set a good example. NOT TRUE I learned the hard way. My wife also converted, but to Catholicism. I wanted to look into the following faiths to see if they had it right: Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Lutherans and Orhtodox. I chose Orthodox but my wife wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Because I knew Catholicism, so I thought, I took her to mass, totally lost at first. I was shocked and very frightened that I might go to hell for just stepping in a church like this. I was very scared for my salvation but mostly my childrfen’s salavation. I was studyingy Orhtodoxy and convinced it was the way to go mainly because I feel called to the priesthood still. Never stopped feeling that way. When the priest on our first visit to his parish asked my sons if they had ever thought of a vocation to the priesthood I nearly croaked, I was very angry at him because of what happened to me in the seminary. I basically said “over my dead body” under my breath. About 3 weeks later I began to open up to realize that I might be getting in the way of God’s will. So as I grew spiritually I began to understand Catholicism like I had never known before. It actually made sense now. But it tool time.

I could carry on more, but this is what I have learned. I asked this same question as a faithful Protestant. We are all unworthy of salvation. Our culpability is based on our acceptatance if not understanding. There may be far more people in heave in the end than we realize because of invincible ignorance. I know my story does not fit many of your perfect worlds. My parents died in my 30’s and I stayed far away from them because they were hateful and one a drunk. They bent over backwards to hurt me. It’s like they hated the fact I did something they couldn’t - stick with my marriage, a vocation. Mom tried to chase off my wife. But her faith tradition taught her to stick it out no matter what…unlike most of the Catholics I know. We could learn some very good things from some of our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Only God will know in the end. That is why we need to trust in Jesus’ Divine Mercy. Jesus I Trust In You.

 

[panoikei]

If the ignorance was of a truth necessary for salvation, and could have been overcome by some reasonable effort, then no.

You’re speaking as if you know the thoughts of others. We can not understand where many people are coming from. That is why so many Protestants think we worship Mary, and many other wrong things. There are Catholics that come close to making their devotion to Mary look like worship. They idolize the Blessed Mother…which is a sin. So logically, not knowing or understanding, could really confuse people. It may take a lifetime just to accept one small detail for some people depending on many factors… like abuse, trust issues. If someone grows ulp around anti-Catholics or anti-Chriatians then it is very difficult to get to the next level because it hinders our natural tendency to desire family. We’ve lost family over converting. Unless you’ve been here you have no idea what you are saying. It’s like an English professor trying to talk intelligently about Physics, without a foundation in it.

Or judging by my writing and spelling here it my be more prudent for me to say the reverse. A physics professor trying to teach Liturature/English without a foundation.

 

[Dauphin]

You’re speaking as if you know the thoughts of others. We can not understand where many people are coming from. That is why so many Protestants think we worship Mary, and many other wrong things. There are Catholics that come close to making their devotion to Mary look like worship. They idolize the Blessed Mother…which is a sin. So logically, not knowing or understanding, could really confuse people. It may take a lifetime just to accept one small detail for some people depending on many factors… like abuse, trust issues. If someone grows ulp around anti-Catholics or anti-Chriatians then it is very difficult to get to the next level because it hinders our natural tendency to desire family. We’ve lost family over converting. Unless you’ve been here you have no idea what you are saying. It’s like an English professor trying to talk intelligently about Physics, without a foundation in it.

I’m saying only what the Popes have said. I didn’t invent Catholic doctrine:

“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” - Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

 

[panoikei]

Just like Peter pointed out about isolating oneself and interpreting scripture on their own it is logical to assume the same thing applies for us regarding Encyclicals. Don’t you think?

 

[Benedict108]

Just like Peter pointed out about isolating oneself and interpreting scripture on their own it is logical to assume the same thing applies for us regarding Encyclicals. Don’t you think?

It would be dangerous to interpret Encyclicals without a proper understanding of them, personal interpretation, but there are lots of writings to help us to understand them. As far as Dauphin’s writing, he has been fairly straight on. You can take into consideration the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man’s moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.

(I underlined the text.)
Excerpt from: newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

Pax tecum.