Vincible and invincible ignorance

Last updated

Vincible ignorance is, in Catholic moral theology, ignorance that a person could remove by applying reasonable diligence in the given set of circumstances. It contrasts with invincible ignorance, which a person is either entirely incapable of removing, or could only do so by supererogatory efforts (i.e., efforts above and beyond normal duty). [1]

Contents

The first Pope to use the term invincible ignorance officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863).[ citation needed ] The term, however, is far older than that. Aquinas, for instance, uses it in his Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274), [2] and discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen (3rd century).[ citation needed ]

Doctrine of vincible ignorance

It is culpable to remain willfully ignorant of matters that one is obligated to know. [3] While invincible ignorance eliminates culpability, vincible ignorance at most mitigates it, and may even aggravate guilt. The guilt of an action performed in vincible ignorance ought to be measured by the degree of diligence or negligence shown in performing the act. [4] An individual is morally responsible for their ignorance and for the acts resulting from it. [3] If some insufficient diligence was shown in dispelling ignorance, it is termed merely vincible; it may diminish culpability to the point of rendering a sin venial. When little or no effort is made to remove ignorance, the ignorance is termed crass or supine; it removes little or no guilt. Deliberately fostered ignorance is affected or studied; it can increase guilt. [1]

Ignorance may be:

Doctrine of invincible ignorance

"Invincible ignorance excuses from all culpability. An action committed in ignorance of the law prohibiting it, or of the facts of the case, is not a voluntary act." [3] On the other hand, it is culpable to remain willfully ignorant of matters that one is obligated to know (vincible ignorance). In this case the individual is morally responsible for their ignorance, and for the acts resulting from it. [3] The guilt associated with an offense committed in ignorance is less than it would have been if the act were committed in full knowledge, because in that case the offense is less voluntary. [3]

Protestant view

Protestants diverged from Catholic doctrine in this area during the Reformation. Martin Luther believed that invincible ignorance was only a valid excuse for offenses against human law. In his view, humans are ignorant of divine law because of original sin, for which all bear guilt. [3] John Calvin agreed that ignorance of God's law is always vincible. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of the crime committed and the legal determination of a crime may depend upon both a mental state and actus reus, like the designation of a homicide as murder is a matter of intention to commit a crime or in some jurisdictions knowledge that one's action would cause a crime to be committed. The mitigation of culpability under some established legal doctrines may reduce the severity of some criminal charges, and so mental state is an element of most crimes, other than crimes of strict liability.

<i>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus</i> Christian doctrine of religious exclusivity

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a phrase referring to a Christian doctrine about who is to receive salvation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Principle of double effect</span> Christian ethical consideration

The principle of double effect – also known as the rule of double effect; the doctrine of double effect, often abbreviated as DDE or PDE, double-effect reasoning; or simply double effect – is a set of ethical criteria which Christian philosophers have advocated for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act may also cause an effect one would otherwise be obliged to avoid. The first known example of double-effect reasoning is Thomas Aquinas' treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologica.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sloth (deadly sin)</span> Laziness and apathy as a sin

Sloth is one of the seven capital sins in Catholic teachings. It is the most difficult sin to define and credit as sin, since it refers to an assortment of ideas, dating from antiquity and including mental, spiritual, pathological, and physical states. One definition is a habitual disinclination to exertion, or laziness.

According to Catholicism, a venial sin is a lesser sin that does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell as an unrepented mortal sin would. A venial sin consists in acting as one should not, without the actual incompatibility with the state of grace that a mortal sin implies; they do not break one's friendship with God, but injure it.

Casti connubii is a papal encyclical promulgated by Pope Pius XI on 31 December 1930 in response to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion. It stressed the sanctity of marriage, prohibited Catholics from using any form of artificial birth control, and reaffirmed the prohibition on abortion. It also explained the authority of church doctrine on moral matters, and advocated that civil governments follow the lead of the church in this area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Must</span> Winemaking ingredient

Must is freshly crushed fruit juice that contains the skins, seeds, and stems of the fruit. The solid portion of the must is called pomace and typically makes up 7–23% of the total weight of the must. Making must is the first step in winemaking. Because of its high glucose content, typically between 10 and 15%, must is also used as a sweetener in a variety of cuisines. Unlike commercially sold grape juice, which is filtered and pasteurized, must is thick with particulate matter, opaque, and comes in various shades of brown and purple.

In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction. It has been noted that the word, culpability, "ordinarily has normative force, for in nonlegal English, a person is culpable only if he is justly to blame for his conduct". Culpability therefore marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held legally responsible, and a randomly occurring event, like naturally occurring earthquakes or naturally arriving meteorites, for which no human can be held responsible.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

Willful blindness is a term used in law to describe a situation in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping themselves unaware of facts that would render them liable or implicated. In United States v. Jewell, the court held that proof of willful ignorance satisfied the requirement of knowledge as to criminal possession and importation of drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Satisfaction theory of atonement</span> Catholic theory of atonement

The satisfaction theory of atonement is a theory in Catholic theology which holds that Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction for humankind's disobedience through his own supererogatory obedience. The theory draws primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically his Cur Deus Homo. It has been traditionally taught in the Roman Catholic tradition of Western Christianity. Since one of God's characteristics is justice, affronts to that justice must be atoned for. It is thus connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice.

<i>Summa Theologica</i> Theological treatise by Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologiae or Summa Theologica, often referred to simply as the Summa, is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), a scholastic theologian and Doctor of the Church. It is a compendium of all of the main theological teachings of the Catholic Church, intended to be an instructional guide for theology students, including seminarians and the literate laity. Presenting the reasoning for almost all points of Christian theology in the West, topics of the Summa follow the following cycle: God; Creation, Man; Man's purpose; Christ; the Sacraments; and back to God.

A stumbling block or scandal in the Bible is a metaphor for a behaviour or attitude that leads another to sin or to destructive behaviour.

An invincible error is, in Catholic moral theology, a normally sinful action which is not considered sinful because it was committed through blameless ignorance that one's actions were harmful or otherwise prohibited.

In law, ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorantia legis neminem excusat, is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

In the North American legal system and in US Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, willful violation or willful non-compliance is a violation of workplace rules and policies that occurs either deliberately or as a result of neglect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Aquinas</span> Italian philosopher and theologian (1225–1274)

Thomas Aquinas, OP was an Italian Dominican friar and priest, an influential philosopher and theologian, and a jurist in the tradition of scholasticism from the county of Aquino in the Kingdom of Sicily, Italy; he is known within the tradition as the Doctor Angelicus, the Doctor Communis, and the Doctor Universalis. In 1999, John Paul II added a new title to these traditional ones: Doctor Humanitatis.

The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian views on sin</span> Christian views on sin

In Christianity, sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression of divine law. The doctrine of sin is central to the Christian faith, since its basic message is about redemption in Christ.

Quanto conficiamur moerore is an encyclical of Pope Pius IX, published on August 10, 1863, addressed to the College of Cardinals and Italian Episcopate.

References

  1. 1 2 "Ignorance - Invincible and Vincible (This Rock: July/August 1999)". Archived from the original on 2011-06-28.
  2. Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia IIae q.76 a.2
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 George Hayward Joyce, "INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE", in James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray (eds.), Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), p. 403.
  4. 1 2 "Ignorance". Catholic Encyclopedia .

Further reading