One can never know if they are invincibly ignorant?

[WannabeSaint]

It is said that people who are invincibly ignorant are not held culpable for an sinful action they commit because it is literally impossible for them to know any better.

But it is also said that only God can know if someone is invincibly ignorant.

I don’t understand how it can be literally impossible for them to have known their act was sinful, but at the same time they can’t know for sure they are invincibly ignorant…How can it be impossible and not impossible at the same time?

 

[WannabeSaint]

Source:

Library : The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance | Catholic Culture

And, furthermore, though he Pope Pius IX does not use this odd modern word, of course, psychological factors matter — some things are impossible because they are morally impossible, humanly impossible, psychologically impossible. He said that in view of the indescribable real complexity and mysteriousness of the many factors that might limit a person’s ability to understand the claims of the Church, there is no way as a rule to know who is or is not invincibly ignorant.

 

[Socrates92]

How does that confuse you? You’d think it would be more confusing if it were the other way around. (How could you simultaneously be invincibly ignorant of a moral matter and aware of the fact that you are invincibly ignorant of that moral matter? Wouldn’t that be an oxymoron?)

 

[Vico]

It is said that people who are invincibly ignorant are not held culpable for an sinful action they commit because it is literally impossible for them to know any better.

But it is also said that only God can know if someone is invincibly ignorant.

I don’t understand how it can be literally impossible for them to have known their act was sinful, but at the same time they can’t know for sure they are invincibly ignorant…How can it be impossible and not impossible at the same time?

From Catholic Encylopedia, Ignorance

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible . Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable.

Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[Maximus1]

The only way I can sort out these " strands of smoke" is analogy to related ideas in criminal law jurisprudence.
The basics of criminal law involves asking," what constitutes a culpable crime."
You have to have a merging of Actus Reus( criminal act) and Men’s Rea( criminal mind).
You must have both and essentially at the same time, to constitute a culpable crime.
Sin employs a similar idea. There is the objective act. That act must be coupled with a culpable appreciation of the act is sinful, at the time you are doing it. This coupling gets to the heart of wrongfulness.
Some people have organic brain damage. Or a clinical disorder. It prevents their capacity to appreciate their actions fully. We would say such a person has " diminished capacity." A lesser Culpability than someone who has complete appreciation of wrong and sin, and then acts.
Let’s say at a future date you fully appreciate the wrongfulness of an act. That does not change Culpability which I established at the time of the act.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

We human beings have a vast capability for rationalization.
And looking for loopholes.
And workarounds.

And we’re pretty lazy about learning Truth.
Or rather, when it looks like Truth may conflict with our pet ideas we stop probing (“see? I dont know! Invincible ignorant!”).

God isn’t fooled.

 

[Aquinas11]

I don’t understand how it can be literally impossible for them to have known their act was sinful, but at the same time they can’t know for sure they are invincibly ignorant

Probably because if I have the sufficient knowledge to know what is and is not invincibly ignorant, then I’d know what is and is not a sin.

 

[Vico]

The only way I can sort out these " strands of smoke" is analogy to related ideas in criminal law jurisprudence.
The basics of criminal law involves asking," what constitutes a culpable crime."
You have to have a merging of Actus Reus( criminal act) and Men’s Rea( criminal mind).
You must have both and essentially at the same time, to constitute a culpable crime.
Sin employs a similar idea. There is the objective act. That act must be coupled with a culpable appreciation of the act is sinful, at the time you are doing it. This coupling gets to the heart of wrongfulness.
Some people have organic brain damage. Or a clinical disorder. It prevents their capacity to appreciate their actions fully. We would say such a person has " diminished capacity." A lesser Culpability than someone who has complete appreciation of wrong and sin, and then acts.
Let’s say at a future date you fully appreciate the wrongfulness of an act. That does not change Culpability which I established at the time of the act.

Vincible and feigned ignorance is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church also:

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.

1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[Crusader13]

But it is also said that only God can know if someone is invincibly ignorant.

That’s exactly right. Sometimes there is a great emphasis on those who are invincibly ignorant as a way to justify the view that many will enter heaven.

Not accepting the gospel for example; many will claim that invincible ignorance is their safety net and therefore they can attain salvation without Jesus or the Church.

There is no benchmark or biblical teaching that describes how a person is invincibly ignorant, usually it is a matter of opinion and an argument against the belief that every non-catholic is automatically going to hell. Which isn’t the teaching of the Church anyway.

 

[WannabeSaint]

I forgot to add a caveat.

The person is reflecting on past sins, not current sins.

For example: “I didn’t believe the pope was the vicar of Christ, because was a child stuck in a cave cut off from civilization and was never exposed to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I
Couldn’t have been culpable…I sure do know now though once I got out!”

Or

“I dont remember, but my mom said when I was a 2 yr old, I would always say “No!” when she told me to do something…”

 

[Maximus1]

Those sections of the catechism raise their own problems.
If we are talking suffering for eternity, I have a real problem with the idea that a person is capable of fully appreciating the gravity of their action absence a true effort, fully informed and done knowingly, with a purpose of defying God.
First, such an action, considering the gravity of eternal punishment, is irrational by definition in any example I can imagine( this the possibility of Hell is for those circumstances I cannot imagine).
An irrational mind is diminished by definition. Imputing culpability to an irrational thought process and behavior still posseses the same impediment to appreciation of " imputing" culpability, because the tool, the mind, is diminished I appreciating it also. That the mind was not capable of recognising fully, the gravity of the action in the first instance implicated the very same deficit regarding the sections you cite. Logically it is the the incapacity to fully appreciate the two catechism sections you cite at the moment of the Actus Reus.( Sin) that represents the diminished capacity in the first instance.
Which gets you to God’s purpose. Julian of Norwich speaks of sin as behovely. It is worse than hell, and at the same time it speaks to sin in God’s purpose as a vehicle to discern and appreciate right living.
God is good. We achieve salvation not because we are good but rather because God is good.
I tend to believe mortal sin is rare in the eternal damnation sense. Right or wrong, I feel confident that life is not a gauntlet of gotchas because my belief in God’s goodness won’t allow it.
So how does this translate?
Those sections you cite are certainly serious consideration. Don’t feign. Keep yourself in conscientious practice. We have an obligation to improve ourselves.
That said, my belief is God wants us to transform. Transformation is ultimately the persuit of internalizing Christianity. I heard the idea that we don’t think ourselves into right living, we live ourselves into right thinking, long ago. This simply means it is the practice of our faith that allows us to follow those words in the catechism. Loving one another, as Jesus loved us has to be more than words, and obligation, and sacrifice. It needs to be internalized. We need to engage each other with charity and mercy. Not as an obligation, but as a desire that flows more and more naturally from who we are. Transform! Then I think you find you have already gone a long way complying with catechism when you go back and read it.

 

[jesusmademe]

Correct me if I am wrong but most of the time people have som sort of knowledge about the truth but not the full truth.
So people get less culpability than eg a Catholic with good miral formation but it is often never zero percent culpability for a person with less knowledge about how to live their life in a good moral way.
I was told there are degress of culpability. All mortal sins not repented are leading one to hell but some speak of planning are murder would be worse than let’s say watching bad evil internet as you had some free time.
Both can send you to hell if not repented.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “If we are talking suffering for eternity”

• Yes, eternity. The teaching on the immediate judgment is a point of different with other religions that accept more than one reincarnation, that is, more than the resurrection. Catechism 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596 At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597

You wrote: “I have a real problem with the idea that a person is capable of fully appreciating the gravity of their action absence a true effort, fully informed and done knowingly, with a purpose of defying God.”

• I understand that, however, full knowledge does not mean knowing every reprocussion, only the moral character of the act. It was summarized in the Catholic Encyclopedia with this: “Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.”

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved November 28, 2019 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

You wrote: “We achieve salvation not because we are good but rather because God is good.”

• Yes, certainly we do not achieve salvation without the grace of God, however, it is not irrestible due to free will, and also we are partly the cause of our own salvation through cooperation of free will.

You wrote: “my belief is God wants us to transform.”

• Yes, that is the Catholic teaching, the wish of God that all be saved, but we know that it is not forced upon us.

You wrote: “Not as an obligation, but as a desire that flows more and more naturally from who we are.”

• Yes, that is charity. Catechism 1844 By charity, we love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves for love of God. Charity, the form of all the virtues, “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14).

 

[Maximus1]

Fully appreciating the gravity of ones actions as one is taking that action, that it will result in eternal damnation, is an irrational act. It is the most irrational act a human being can commit with nothing a close second. How can one appreciate the moral character of the act? The person is operating irrationally. And if irrational, how free is your will?
“I said God wishes us to transform.” You raised a different issue about God wishing us to be saved. So I will address that. There is a wide divergence about this offered by different men. The group that think the gate is narrow means a very limited salvation think God’s will can easily be superseded by man’s will. Others think God’s will could not be so easily defeated.

 

[WannabeSaint]

The person is reflecting on past sins, not current sins.

For example: “I didn’t believe the pope was the vicar of Christ, because was a child stuck in a cave cut off from civilization and was never exposed to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I
Couldn’t have been culpable…I sure do know now though once I got out!”

Or

“I dont remember, but my mom said when I was a 2 yr old, I would always say “No!” when she told me to do something…”

Not to be pushy and rude, but could somebody comment in this scenario? Could they know they USED TO BE invincibly ignorant?

 

[Vico]

Fully appreciating the gravity of ones actions as one is taking that action, that it will result in eternal damnation, is an irrational act. It is the most irrational act a human being can commit with nothing a close second. How can one appreciate the moral character of the act? The person is operating irrationally. And if irrational, how free is your will?
“I said God wishes us to transform.” You raised a different issue about God wishing us to be saved. So I will address that. There is a wide divergence about this offered by different men. The group that think the gate is narrow means a very limited salvation think God’s will can easily be superseded by man’s will. Others think God’s will could not be so easily defeated.

The transformation is made through cooperation with deifying grace, which if it is maintained at death is salvation.

All sin in irrational, yet it may be mortal even so. When in a state of sanctifying grace, per the dogma of faith, it is possible to remain free from mortal sin, by cooperating with it. Lesser good is chosen over the highest good in sin.

Catechism

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. …

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. …

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48 Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49

 

[Maximus1]

Thanks. Don’t you think as irrationality grows, culpability grows smaller? Remember, we are not talking about some form and lenth of purgation. We are talking about it not being everlasting. Hence the " radical possibility of human freedom"

 

[po18guy]

An oxymoron.

Knowledge of one’s invincible ignorance is either:

1. Impossible
2. Eliminates that same ignorance.

 

[WannabeSaint]

An oxymoron.

Knowledge of one’s invincible ignorance is either:

1. Impossible
2. Eliminates that same ignorance.

I agree.

But I was referring to someone reflecting on their past and making a judgment on their past sin, not recent sin.

For example : a vincible adult Catholic reflecting back on his childhood when he was trapped in a basement, cut off from the rest of the world, where he was never ever informed about Christianity. He never believed in papal infallibility that time due to not knowing Christianity existed.

The adult now realizes his disbelief was a sin, but understands that there is nothing he could do about it back then and wasn’t culpable back then. Now as an adult he wouldn’t disbelieve again because he knows hes vincible.

 

[Vico]

Thanks. Don’t you think as irrationality grows, culpability grows smaller? Remember, we are not talking about some form and lenth of purgation. We are talking about it not being everlasting. Hence the " radical possibility of human freedom"

Due to original sin, those that are unbaptised are not assured of a state of sanctifying grace, and that includes those that do not attain the use of reason.

All actual sin is voluntary and may be from ignorance, passion, or malice.

On contempt, from the Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 76 > A4:

For when a thing is not known to be a sin the will cannot be said to consent to the sin directly, but only accidentally; wherefore, in that case there is less contempt, and therefore less sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article4