Invincible Ignorance?

[James248]

How can invincible ignorance apply to those who already have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info as opposed to people who haven’t even heard of the Church?

 

[dshix]

How can invincible ignorance apply to those who already have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info as opposed to people who haven’t even heard of the Church?

In a way, you’ve answered your own question. They can’t.

One can only have invincible ignorance when they are ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own. So those who, as you said, “have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info” are incapable of having invincible ignorance. If they are ignorant of something, it is vincible ignorance.

 

[psalm90]

How can invincible ignorance apply to those who already have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info as opposed to people who haven’t even heard of the Church?

Well, here’s the opposite point of view from post #2.

It’s psychology. Psychology 101. People are not logical about everything. So, they don’t have that built-up properly-nourished conscience to help them make the “right” decision.

In terms of person spirituality, it requires a commitment of heart, soul, mind, and strength to internalize the word of God and live in accordance with God’s will.

(see Deut 6:4 and following)

To be more specific, my sister, even as an adult and long after the Catechism has been published, still klings to something she recalls from her 4th grade teaching sister. The Sister told her that to commit a moral sin you have to hate God. My sister holds on to that and asserts that no matter what she does (which shall remain here unspecified) is never a mortal sin because she doesn’t “hate God.” So, there you are.

The question arises whether anybody like her to holds on to old sister’s tales are entirely culpable for their actions (paragraph 1735 of the catechism).

Moral relativism may be the ultimate of looking for loopholes or making up loopholes to effectively ignore all religious influence, particularly Catholic practices and teaching. It seem that without keeping a close eye and ear on scripture, we’re more prone to making up our own rules. As such, we fall into the “original” original sin of making ourselves gods and defining our own right and wrong.

 

[Vico]

How can invincible ignorance apply to those who already have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info as opposed to people who haven’t even heard of the Church?

Vincible ignorance 1791, 1792.
Invincible ignorance 1793.

Catechism

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

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.

 

[poche]

How can invincible ignorance apply to those who already have access to the Church’s teaching and ignore it for other info as opposed to people who haven’t even heard of the Church?

If they have access to the Church’s teaching but it was presented poorly or incorrectly then their ignorance would be invincible.

 

[Vico]

If they have access to the Church’s teaching but it was presented poorly or incorrectly then their ignorance would be invincible.

Invincible ignorance is due to being unable to know, not due to negligence.

Summa Theologica, I, II, Q76, A2:

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

 

[thistle]

If they have access to the Church’s teaching but it was presented poorly or incorrectly then their ignorance would be invincible.

That is not correct.

 

[mommy_k]

Capacity to learn is key as other posters stated.

It does not matter how the instruction was given, if the knowledge imparted is correct.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Too often, sadly, what has been presented isn’t the real full teaching - see thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1042128

If the parish or diocese - over maybe 50 years - hasn’t really been rolling out grace abounding (Holy Spirit power for living) and actual belief, why should a child of a family that thinks they want to be good Catholics see the Gospel as any more nutritious than the agnostics of good will that live next door?

We’re told we’ve got to “try”, because it’s trendy or fluffy. It is indeed - but then what, because maybe trendy or fluffy isn’t quite enough. Some people realise they need more than a starvation diet.

It’s impossible to discern individually through a forum, but as people of all sorts are reading, what I have described is bound to apply to quite a lot of people - it does to most Catholics and protestants of my own acquaintance.

Hence we must pray that our churches will mine all the rich truths of Christ.

 

[poche]

That is not correct.

So if the knowledge is given in a way that causes one to hate the Church then the person is culpable in the same way that someone who was well catechized is?

 

[Vico]

If they have access to the Church’s teaching but it was presented poorly or incorrectly then their ignorance would be invincible.

Culpability may be reduced or removed sometimes.

Catechism 2352 gives more factors that bear on culpability:

… one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

And:

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.

However, 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I think Jimmy Akin thought the question was whether the person had enough information that they should have been convinced, or rather, *were *convinced, but choose not to become Catholic for some other reason. Like, in today’s day and age, no one is really totally ignorant of Christianity, barring a few aboriginal people in the Andaman Islands.

But imagine two people:

First guy isn’t a Christian, but after coming into contact with Christians, he becomes convinced of the truth of Christianity, or at least strongly suspects it might be true. But he decides not to pursue it further, because it would upset his family or make him a minority in his community. This guy can’t claim invincible ignorance.

Second guy isn’t a Christian either. He knows that there is a religion called Christianity, and has a vague idea that it involves worshiping Jesus, but doesn’t know much beyond that. He’s never given information that convinces him Christianity is anything other than one more religion, like Odinism. This guy might be able to claim invincible ignorance. He knows that Christianity exists, but he doesn’t know much beyond that.

 

[James248]

You said something to this effect.

If they have access to the Church’s teaching but it was presented poorly or incorrectly then their ignorance would be invincible.