Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg; annalex; HarleyD; Quix; blue-duncan; 1000 silverlings
my understanding is that the RC view is that anyone with "sufficient" disagreement with the Church has the PRESUMPTION of damnation, UNLESS, God grants a special dispensation, which is fully within His rights to grant. For example, if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having been acceptably baptized by Catholic standards, then he is presumed damned, without etc.

The scripture tells us that unless you are baptised and take the Eucharist, you are damned (John 3:5, John 6:54). We understand that the reality is a bit less harsh, and one who does not partake of the sacraments through no personal fault of his own is judged according to his works based on the light that he has been given. To put it a bit differently, mortal sin is rejection of God that is wilful. When a Muslim or a Protestant rejects the sacraments of the Church because this is how he was brought up to believe, there is no wilful personal rejection of the will of God, and hence no sin. This doctrine is called invincible ignorance.

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

Ignorance


12,442 posted on 04/12/2007 3:15:35 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12191 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

Thanks for the refresher course on I.I. This sounds like a little more slack is cut for those who were not raised in Catholic homes than I had thought.

13,102 posted on 04/19/2007 9:53:50 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12442 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson