I am not sure where to put this, so should the moderators feel that this thread would be better suited placed somewhere else then by all means move it.
Anyway, an unrelated thread has got me thinking about the topic of ignorance and how it relates to our culpability for sin. In Catholic thought this issue has been addressed by a four way distinction in the types of ignorance human beings can fall into.
The first type is called nescience. Nescience is a lack of knowledge about which a person has no obligation to know. For example, I do not know the Hindi word for dodecahedron and I am under no obligation to know. That I do not understand Hindi is not under my current circumstances a moral failing. Were my circumstances to change, wherein it would be beneficial for me to know Hindi, then my nescience of the language would become ignorance which in Catholic thought is defined by a lacking of knowledge one ought to have.
Ignorance is categorized into three types. The first is called invincible ignorance. Remember that the difference between ignorance and nescience is that ignorance is a lack of knowledge that ought to be there. One is morally bound to know about that which one is ignorant. However in the case of invincible ignorance the means of acquiring the necessary knowledge is outside of one's power. For example, a North Sentinelese tribesman ought to know about Christ and the Catholic faith. Like every human being he is under moral obligation to know it. But that he cannot know it due to being isolated on an island to which no one has access means that no amount of diligence on his part can avail him of that knowledge. Consequently, his ignorance is not culpable.
The second category is vincible ignorance. Ignorance is vincible when that ignorance could have been rectified with due diligence. If I were a high school student undertaking exams and I come across a question that I do not know the answer to my ignorance is vincible. If I had paid more attention in class or had I done my homework I would have had the knowledge necessary to answer the question. As such my lack of knowledge is a defect and therefore culpable. Of course, the gravity of the defect depends upon the gravity of the subject matter of which one is ignorant. Not knowing the answer to a geography question is not a grave matter. It is in the above case a failing, but a trivial one. Not knowing my religious obligations as a Catholic (such as attending Mass) due to a lack of study would be far more serious.
The third form is called affected ignorance. Affected ignorance, like vincible ignorance, is a lack of knowledge one could have obtained with due diligence but failed to do so not out of negligence but by willful choice. In other words, it is deliberate ignorance. A Catholic who refuses to study the demands of his faith lest by doing so he should come to knowledge he fears would be inconvenient in the face of his desires would be guilty of affected ignorance. It is not only culpable but itself a grave sin. Affected ignorance is not really ignorance so much as it is an ignoring of obligatory knowledge. You refuse the answer because you know you will not like the answer.
Now sin is sin. A sin is an act which is intrinsically evil. It can never be the case that a sin is not a sin by the circumstances or the lack of knowledge of its perpetrators. It cannot be that fornication is not a sin for Bob and Lucy but is a sin for Greg and Ashley. No all are guilty. What can differ however is the culpability for sins. Bob and Lucy have had a secular upbringing and have little notion of religion. They have grown up and have never been told of any obligation to marriage. Their ignorance may be such that their culpability is less than Greg and Ashley's, who have had a religious upbringing and thus know better. But we need to be careful and not presume that Bob and Lucy are free of any culpability for Saint Paul tells us that the moral law is written on the heart. Thus it is questionable whether anyone can be truly invincibly ignorant of at least the main tenets of the moral law.
By the way. According to Google translate, the Hindi word for dodecahedron is द्वादशफ़लक (dvaadashafalak).
Anyway, an unrelated thread has got me thinking about the topic of ignorance and how it relates to our culpability for sin. In Catholic thought this issue has been addressed by a four way distinction in the types of ignorance human beings can fall into.
The first type is called nescience. Nescience is a lack of knowledge about which a person has no obligation to know. For example, I do not know the Hindi word for dodecahedron and I am under no obligation to know. That I do not understand Hindi is not under my current circumstances a moral failing. Were my circumstances to change, wherein it would be beneficial for me to know Hindi, then my nescience of the language would become ignorance which in Catholic thought is defined by a lacking of knowledge one ought to have.
Ignorance is categorized into three types. The first is called invincible ignorance. Remember that the difference between ignorance and nescience is that ignorance is a lack of knowledge that ought to be there. One is morally bound to know about that which one is ignorant. However in the case of invincible ignorance the means of acquiring the necessary knowledge is outside of one's power. For example, a North Sentinelese tribesman ought to know about Christ and the Catholic faith. Like every human being he is under moral obligation to know it. But that he cannot know it due to being isolated on an island to which no one has access means that no amount of diligence on his part can avail him of that knowledge. Consequently, his ignorance is not culpable.
The second category is vincible ignorance. Ignorance is vincible when that ignorance could have been rectified with due diligence. If I were a high school student undertaking exams and I come across a question that I do not know the answer to my ignorance is vincible. If I had paid more attention in class or had I done my homework I would have had the knowledge necessary to answer the question. As such my lack of knowledge is a defect and therefore culpable. Of course, the gravity of the defect depends upon the gravity of the subject matter of which one is ignorant. Not knowing the answer to a geography question is not a grave matter. It is in the above case a failing, but a trivial one. Not knowing my religious obligations as a Catholic (such as attending Mass) due to a lack of study would be far more serious.
The third form is called affected ignorance. Affected ignorance, like vincible ignorance, is a lack of knowledge one could have obtained with due diligence but failed to do so not out of negligence but by willful choice. In other words, it is deliberate ignorance. A Catholic who refuses to study the demands of his faith lest by doing so he should come to knowledge he fears would be inconvenient in the face of his desires would be guilty of affected ignorance. It is not only culpable but itself a grave sin. Affected ignorance is not really ignorance so much as it is an ignoring of obligatory knowledge. You refuse the answer because you know you will not like the answer.
Now sin is sin. A sin is an act which is intrinsically evil. It can never be the case that a sin is not a sin by the circumstances or the lack of knowledge of its perpetrators. It cannot be that fornication is not a sin for Bob and Lucy but is a sin for Greg and Ashley. No all are guilty. What can differ however is the culpability for sins. Bob and Lucy have had a secular upbringing and have little notion of religion. They have grown up and have never been told of any obligation to marriage. Their ignorance may be such that their culpability is less than Greg and Ashley's, who have had a religious upbringing and thus know better. But we need to be careful and not presume that Bob and Lucy are free of any culpability for Saint Paul tells us that the moral law is written on the heart. Thus it is questionable whether anyone can be truly invincibly ignorant of at least the main tenets of the moral law.
By the way. According to Google translate, the Hindi word for dodecahedron is द्वादशफ़लक (dvaadashafalak).
Last edited: