John,
“Imprudent” is a pretty strong word . . .
There are two things I get from this parable: Consequenses are proportional to wrong-doing, and knowledge intensifies crime.
Both of these things apply to the doctrine of purgatory, and hell.
Pax tecum.
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
Dear Huiou Theou:
I agree that parables can be used in different contexts to draw focused lessons – St. Augustine does this with this very parable when he uses it to explain why the world before Christ seemed less convulsed with trouble than the world since. He argued, based on this passage in Luke, that, before the Gospel entered the world, light stripes were given for grave wrongs, but since the Gospel became available – even though it had not been heard by all – the world was punished more severely, as a servant who knows but fails to do the Master’s will. Clearly, this is an application of a principle from the parable and not the literal meaning of the parable itself. (See, Augustine,
Sermon 22 on the New Testament, 7; and Augustine,
Letter 111, 2.)
I think this use by St. Augustine is similar to the two principles that you draw from the parable, both of which seem correct and, as you say, both seem applicable through the analogy of faith and as principles of justice to both Hell and Purgatory.
However, when considering the literal meaning of the parable, what you call “the Lord’s intention,” the parable must be taken as a whole, in the context of the Chruch and all of the Scriptures, and in the analogy of Faith. (See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 112-114; Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 12.) When St. Augustine undertakes to do this, to read the parable itself, rather than to use a principle that it manifests, this is what he says:
Observe how clearly He here shows that it is a graver matter for a man to sin with knowledge than in ignorance. And yet we must not on this account betake ourselves for refuge to the shades of ignorance, with the view of finding our excuse therein. It is one thing to be ignorant, and another thing to be unwilling to know. For the will is at fault in the case of the man of whom it is said, “He is not inclined to understand, so as to do good.”
But even the ignorance, which is not theirs who refuse to know, but theirs who are, as it were, simply ignorant, does not so far excuse any one as to exempt him from the punishment of eternal fire, though his failure to believe has been the result of his not having at all heard what he should believe; but probably only so far as to mitigate his punishment. For it was not said without reason: “Pour out Your wrath upon the heathen that have not known You;” nor again according to what the apostle says: “When He shall come from heaven in a flame of fire to take vengeance on them that know not God.” But yet in order that we may have that knowledge that will prevent our saying, each one of us, “I did not know,” “I did not hear,” “I did not understand;” the human will is summoned, in such words as these: "Wish not to be as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding . . .” (Augustine,
On Grace and Free Will, (AD 426 or 427), Ch. 5.)(Emphasis added.)
The word “probably” in the above quotation is the point at which prudence in interpreting the text is at issue. On balance, when judging the passage in light of the entire Church and Gospel, the better view is that the parable of the servant of “few stripes” is a warning about hell. The matter of prudence at issue is similar to this: If one finds a downed high-power wire lying across the street and it is not obvious whether it is “live” or not, one has a problem. If it is “live,” touching it would be fatal. If it is not “live,” lifting it and moving it out of the way might be difficult and sweaty work, but one will succeed in clearing the road and moving past the spot. What does prudence suggest? When in doubt, treat the wire as “live.”
For these reasons, this parable raises interesting questions about the nature of and the distinctions between punishment and purgation, but it does not provide an incidence of “ignorance” leading to salvation.
The idea that sincere ignorance could save is helpfully discussed in this paper, which might help further this discussion: “
Conscience and Truth,” by then Cardinal Ratzinger (1991).
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
I was thinking that it applied to Purgatory, but then hesistated to apply it to that because in that case, the “victim” was ignorant of the master’s will. People are not ignorant of the master’s will in Purgatory are they?
