Invincible Ignorance

[Ichthus]

jhnsn:

I highlighted the paragraphs in the Catechism that I’m trying to understand. I thought the phrase “through no fault of their own” and “seeks the truth and does the will of God …” refer to invincible ignorance.
Even if he is as dense as a white dwarf. If he seeks the truth his ignorance of the truth is invincible because he sees real truth as meaningless. Why would I study the book “The Aeordynamics of Pig Flight” if its totally ridiculous to me.

Yes, but it is only through no fault if they are invinibly ignorant which means just that “cannot be overcome”

Further more we are commanded by the Church not to delve into nquiry on whether someone is invincibly ignorance of if they aren’t. We simply aren’t allowed to jusge that.

Furthermore you cannot just rip sections from the Catechism or the pope without understanding the context. Baptism of desire, for example, requires perfect contrition, not just an implicit desire as described above.

If he doesn’t seek the truth that doesn’t make him invinciblly ignorant. It means that he has failed to perform a moral duty. If culpable for not seeking the truth, doesn’t matter his reasons, he is damned for it. Vincible ignorance, that which we are culpable for, assumes that he didn’t seek the truth he could have had. Doesn’t matter if he sees it as meaningless. It is only invincible if he had no way of overcoming it, and even then that doesn’t provide for the defect of faith.

Also can and may be saved are a different matter than are saved. They can be, if they receive baptism, even extra sacramentally through baptismus flaminus (baptism of desire) which entails for more than just an implicit desire, such as JPII describes above. It entails perfect contrition as well.

Furthermore, as God never commands what is impossible, He must make it possible for all to do what He commands. This is what God’s antecedent will to save all entails. Moreover, one would think that God knows His elect (those He consequently wills to salvation) and will infallibly ensure that they be saved. No man can saved himself. Salvation is utterly gratuitious on God’s predilection.

Also pargraphy 846 says that God may lead them to that Faith. So they may be lead to the Faith, which is the Catholic Faith.

Perhaps the problem is that one must see invincible ignorance as a basic moral principle. Here what is being dicussed is either the moral obligation to elicit the faith imposed by baptism, or the necessity of precept to be baptised. But baptism is also a necessity of means, so without it one cannot be saved even if invincibly ignorant. But invincible ignorance applies to morality in general. Now it isn’t about how much you studied about the Catholic Faith, necessarily. It is about informing one’s conscience. We are bound to inform our conscience, as a general moral obligation. Now you know that for a sin to be mortal it must be

1. grave matter or believed to be so
2. Done willingly
3. And done with knowledge of its wrongness

Now if one is ignorant of it being wrong, they aren’t guilty of that sin. Nevertheless, they were bound to inform their conscience and thus to know it is wrong. Vincible ignorance here merely means they had the natrural aptitude to know. Invincible means they did not. It has nothing to do with their motives in not informing their conscince, but their potential ability to do so. Hence a chiold below the age of reason or a mentally retard person might be invincibly ignorant because they lack the capacity to know. An islander isolated might be invincibly ignorant of certain moral obligations (though obviously not those naturally apparent). Etc. Invincible ignorance does not mean, however, that the simple lack of a motive to investigate excuses.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1203

Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and *vincible. *Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

 

[jhnsn]

Thanks for the help. I think its sinking in. I’ll listen more closely to their reasoning and not just assume their invincibly ignorant if they don’t seem interested.

 

[Ruthie]

You are slightly off, in your definition of mortal sin.

"CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’ "

“Grave matter” is defined by the Ten Commandments and Mk 10:19. (CCC 1858)

“CCC 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.”

(italics in original)

You said, “1. grave matter or believed to be so”

Believing something is a mortal sin doesn’t make it so. Such a belief could come from scrupulosity, or from ignorance.

“2. Done willingly”

One can do things willingly without having making a deliberate, personal choice. For instance, my husband just asked me to cook dinner, and, since I was hunglry too, I cooked. That’s not deliberate. It would have been, had I sat down and examined my conscience about a wife’s duty to her husband.

“3. And done with knowledge of its wrongness”

Mere knowledge doesn’t qualify; “full knowledge” is specified. For instance, I used birth control for years. (I’m a recent convert.) After marrying my husband, I decided to let God decide whether or not we’d have children. I did not see birth control as wrong. In essence, I did the right thing without full knowledge that using BC is a sin.

You say, “We are bound to inform our conscience, as a general moral obligation.”

How is a person supposed to know that, without being taught?

And, where does it stop? Am I supposed to spend 20 hours a day, reading the Bible, the Catechism, and other documents, looking for sins to inform my conscience about?

“Now if one is ignorant of it being wrong, they aren’t guilty of that sin. Nevertheless, they were bound to inform their conscience and thus to know it is wrong.”

Now, there’s a “catch-22” if I’ve ever seen one.

Please, cite your source for “not informing your conscience” being a sin. I’d like to read it. Thank you.