T
tabsie3210
Guest
The church has always said that the one true church is the Catholic church. I believe that. She’s also said that people who are invincibly (innocently) ignorant of Christ and the Church may still be saved.
“Innocent ignornace” means, “Through no fault of one’s own.” Well, there are some pretty easy examples for that. If a mother and a father are atheists and they have a child, he will be raised as an atheist. If he dies as a young child, then naturally he hasn’t known anything except what his parents have taught him, and they certainly wouldn’t have baptised him. But he’s not even old enough for real decision-making, so it’s unlikely that the child would receive immediate damnation. We can all accept that as innocent ignorance.
What throws me is where adults come in, and what qualifies as “innocence” for them.
What about a Hare Krishna, raised apart from Christianity (certain areas of India have extremely small populations of Christians and very large populations of Hindus)? Any contact with Christians would be very limited when he was a child. If he grew up and didn’t feel the need to explore Christianity because it was so foreign to him.
What about Muslims (not extremists, but your average Joe who tries to live a good life and abhors violence against anyone), who were raised to believe that Christianity was evil and that all Christians would end up in hell? As an adult, he has no desire to learn anything about “the enemy” because he doesn’t want to tarnish his soul and because he thinks we’re dangerous people.
What about a kid born in an Evangelical family that was raised that all Catholics are going to hell because we’re idol worshipers, we worship Mary, etc.? Evangelicals can be very powerful speakers, raining thunder down on people from the pulpit or even from the pews. From the day she’s born, that kid is taught that it’s her sacred duty to convert heathen Catholics and other non-Evangelicals to the “true” worship.
In all three cases these people are adults. I would expect that an adult non-Catholic living in your average town in North America or Europe, where there are Catholics around worshiping publicly, would have the responsibility to at least listen to the Church and make an informed decision, and that refusing to do so would be deliberate ignorance, not at all innocent. But the three cases above are weird because of how far the people in question are separated from Catholicism.
I’m not interested in trying to excuse anyone; God handles the sorting-out business and He would do a far better job than I would. I’m just trying to understand how it fits with adults, because I know a lot of Baptists and other Evangelicals, and I do worry about them because of their disbelief in the Catholic Church. I was wondering to what degree separation and indoctrination from/against Catholicism played a part in innocent ignorance.
“Innocent ignornace” means, “Through no fault of one’s own.” Well, there are some pretty easy examples for that. If a mother and a father are atheists and they have a child, he will be raised as an atheist. If he dies as a young child, then naturally he hasn’t known anything except what his parents have taught him, and they certainly wouldn’t have baptised him. But he’s not even old enough for real decision-making, so it’s unlikely that the child would receive immediate damnation. We can all accept that as innocent ignorance.
What throws me is where adults come in, and what qualifies as “innocence” for them.
What about a Hare Krishna, raised apart from Christianity (certain areas of India have extremely small populations of Christians and very large populations of Hindus)? Any contact with Christians would be very limited when he was a child. If he grew up and didn’t feel the need to explore Christianity because it was so foreign to him.
What about Muslims (not extremists, but your average Joe who tries to live a good life and abhors violence against anyone), who were raised to believe that Christianity was evil and that all Christians would end up in hell? As an adult, he has no desire to learn anything about “the enemy” because he doesn’t want to tarnish his soul and because he thinks we’re dangerous people.
What about a kid born in an Evangelical family that was raised that all Catholics are going to hell because we’re idol worshipers, we worship Mary, etc.? Evangelicals can be very powerful speakers, raining thunder down on people from the pulpit or even from the pews. From the day she’s born, that kid is taught that it’s her sacred duty to convert heathen Catholics and other non-Evangelicals to the “true” worship.
In all three cases these people are adults. I would expect that an adult non-Catholic living in your average town in North America or Europe, where there are Catholics around worshiping publicly, would have the responsibility to at least listen to the Church and make an informed decision, and that refusing to do so would be deliberate ignorance, not at all innocent. But the three cases above are weird because of how far the people in question are separated from Catholicism.
I’m not interested in trying to excuse anyone; God handles the sorting-out business and He would do a far better job than I would. I’m just trying to understand how it fits with adults, because I know a lot of Baptists and other Evangelicals, and I do worry about them because of their disbelief in the Catholic Church. I was wondering to what degree separation and indoctrination from/against Catholicism played a part in innocent ignorance.