+Passion Week+

Last week we spoke of invincible ignorance, but there is much more to the ignorance equation that we need to understand before we are done with this topic. What follows below is taken from Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan’s work: Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities (1958).  It explains not only invincible ignorance but vincible and affected ignorance, which must be better understood to know and appreciate the faith.

“27.With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance.

(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.

(b) Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care. There are various degrees of this species of ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.

“29. Effects of Invincible and Vincible Ignorance

(a) Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin (see 249), if he is invincibly ignorant of the malice involved.

(b) Vincible ignorance does not make an act involuntary, since the ignorance itself is voluntary; hence, it does not excuse from sin. It does not even make an act less voluntary and less sinful, if the ignorance is affected in order that one may have an excuse; for such a state of mind shows that the person would act the same way, even though he had knowledge.

“31. Vincible ignorance makes an act less voluntary and less sinful:

(a) when the ignorance is not affected, for the voluntariness is measured by the knowledge, and knowledge here is lacking;

(b) when the ignorance, though affected, was fostered only through fear that knowledge might compel a stricter way of life; for such a state of mind seems to show that one would not act the same way if one had knowledge.

“490. Ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of a penalty attached to the law has the following effects determined in the law:

(a) No kind of ignorance excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws, unless the contrary is expressly provided for in the law itself (Canon 16, Sec. 1). Thus a person who contracts marriage, while ignorant that he and the other person are first cousins, is invalidly married. (b) Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (or ipso facto; Canon 2229, Sec.1).

(c) If the law contains the following words: praesumpserit, ausus fuerit, scienter, studiose, temerarie, consulto egerit, or others similar to them which require full knowledge and deliberation, any diminution of imputability on the part of either the intellect or the will exempts the delinquent from penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.2). (d) If the law does not contain such words as crass or supine, ignorance of the law or even of only the penalty does not exempt from any penalty latae sententiae; ignorance that is not crass or supine exempts from medicinal penalties, but not from vindicative penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.3, 1).

“833. Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314), loss of the power of suffrage (Canon 167, Sec.1, n.4), irregularity, (Canon 984, n. 5; 985)… etc.

“834. (d) If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially an heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

“905. Ignorance (as explained in 28 and 249) is a cause of sin — of material sin, if the ignorance is antecedent, of formal sin, if the ignorance is consequent. But ignorance is also a sin itself, in the sense now to be explained.

(a) Ignorance may be considered in itself (i.e., precisely as it is the absence of knowledge), and in this sense it is not called a sin, since under this aspect it is not opposed to moral virtue, but to knowledge, the perfection of the intellect.

(b) Ignorance may be considered in relation to the will (i.e., precisely as it is a voluntary defect), and in this sense it is a sin, since under this aspect it is opposed to the moral virtue of studiosity (i.e., the part of temperance which moderates the desire of learning and keeps the golden mean between curiosity and negligence). This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge. Affected ignorance is a sin of commission, careless ignorance a sin of omission.

(c) Ignorance may be considered in relation to obligatory acts (i.e., precisely as it makes one voluntarily incapable of fulfilling one’s duties), and in this sense it partakes of various kinds of sinfulness, inasmuch as he who is voluntarily ignorant of his duty is responsible for the mistakes he will make. Thus, he who is sinfully ignorant in matters of faith, will fail against the precepts of that virtue; he who does not know what his state of life as judge, lawyer, physician, etc., requires, will fail against justice; he who does not know what charity demands of him, will sin against charity.

“906. The malice of the sin of ignorance in matters of faith is as follows: (a) Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.), is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16). (b) The sin committed is but one sin, regardless of length of time, and is incurred at the time one omits due diligence in acquiring knowledge, as is the case with other sins of omission. Hence, he who remains in culpable ignorance of Christian doctrine for a year commits one sin, but the length of time is an aggravating circumstance” (end of McHugh and Callan quotes).

Comments on the above

Point One: “Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care.” So what constitutes ordinary care? In these times only extraordinary effort will suffice for “ordinary care,” since we have no access to the hierarchy and cannot receive the Sacraments. Some are unable to understand the technical points necessary to know the truth and feel that they will only be able to remain Catholic by staying where they are. God will have mercy on them if they are truly unable to make the necessary effort owing to their circumstances. But those with a college education and hence the ability to study and understand, and even those without one who possess this ability are bound to make that effort in order to save their souls and defend the Church! Have we forgotten the early martyrs?

Point 2: “Ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.” How many have simply dismissed all need to study and understand in order to tale for granted the propaganda spread by LibTrad clergy, who they assume are valid and have no desire to consider them otherwise?

Point 3: “Nothing is willed except what is understood.” Have those reading the articles on this site and otherwise studying their faith prayed to the Holy Ghost for the gift of understanding?  Have they confirmed for themselves that what has been written is actually the truth? Have they read and followed the rules listed for study by St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

Point 4: “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…” McHugh and Callan explain these laws as follows:

“451. An irritant or inhabilitating law is one that expressly or equivalently declares that certain defects make an act void or voidable, or a person incapable. SUCH LAWS ARE JUST, EVEN WHEN MADE BY HUMAN AUTHORITY, SINCE IT IS THE COMMON GOOD THAT MAKES THEM NECESSARY, AND THE NATURAL LAW ITSELF REQUIRES THAT THE COMMON GOOD BE PROMOTED.”

And yet we read EVEN FROM THOSE AMONG THE WELL-EDUCATED, WHO CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS KEEPING THE FAITH AT HOME, that such laws are not infallible, not binding, since they are only ”human laws.” They question their binding nature and just application to the present situation and thereby impugn the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs as well as the necessity of the common good and its promotion under the natural law. Among such laws can be counted Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pius II’s Execrabilis, Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolica curae and Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, revised and updated by Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which now prevails. Be warned by the above then and recant your errors, for “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…”

Point 5: “Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (ipso facto). Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314)… If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially a heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

Anyone who has engaged in the services of the Novus Ordo church or those of Traditionalists has incurred this latae sententiae censure. We have no true bishops to absolve us from any such penalties. And no one but the Roman Pontiff can lift the vindicative penalty attached to Can. 2314 §1, n. 3. The only way to prepare ourselves as best as possible for the forgiveness of these censures and penalties before death is to follow the method explained here.

Point 6: “This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge…” Whether careless or affected, ignorance in and of itself is mortally sinful, for: “Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.) is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16).” Failing to exercise due diligence in learning truths of faith can only lead to eternal damnation.

And now we proceed to another topic already covered at length before but which appears to be insufficiently understood, for it is still being flaunted and ignored.

Religious Discussions (CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES) 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

“Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, “listen eagerly to revilings and accusations”. At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

“St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith.

“The text reads: “Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.” (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O’Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

“But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide” (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March 1625: “The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

“That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein.

“It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (1 Peter 3:15) you should be “ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you”, while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Timothy 2:14), “Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers”. So the ability to debate at all was restricted to the clergy.”

Under Can. 1325, the canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note that an 1864 decree forbidding Catholics to participate in the discussions of a certain London group was ordered to be reissued by Pope Benedict XV in 1919 and was then entered into the AAS, (Acta Apostolica Sedis; XI, 309). A similar July 8, 1927, Holy Office decision forbade Catholics to participate in the Lausanne Conference on Christian Unity (AAS XIX, 278). So there can be no doubt that these prohibitions were only further reinforced.

And what do we learn from the above?

1. Those truly qualified to defend the truths of faith in debates with non-Catholics are a rare breed and certainly cannot be found among Catholics today. One presuming to possess such skills when only the Roman Pontiff could determine this is vain and presumptuous, to say the least.
2. Such debates are a grave danger to the faith and not conducive to deterring souls from error.
3. Laymen were long ago forbidden to engage in such debates under pain of excommunication.
4. Even priests cannot enter into such debates without special permission, in urgent cases, from their bishops, and in non-urgent cases, the Holy Office itself.
5. What is envisioned above were debates of a local nature, not video events available to the entire world with all the resulting scandal and harm to souls. And those who view or promote such events contrary to the orders of the Holy See are just as guilty as the one(s) debating.

This is the third or fourth time I have addressed this issue. It applies to forums and podcasts on the Internet and those existing on “Catholic forums” every bit as much as to the video debates themselves. It is not coming from me but straight from the Church. Truth is not up for debate. Orders of the popes are to be obeyed, not questioned and analyzed. And I have an observation to offer on the refusal of those who know the truths of faith and what is expected of them yet fail to adjust their thinking and behavior accordingly.

A relative trained as a counselor noted recently that when a counselor is treating a patient, if three or four months go by and the patient shows little or no progress in recovery, then it is the counselor’s job and duty to sever the relationship with the client. If the counselor DOESN’T do this, s/he faces removal by the state, and can no longer practice. Why? Because the counselor  is enabling the client, or in Church terms, s/he becomes a cooperator in his errors and sins by not refusing to tolerate the client’s behavior. This is similar to the priest whose penitent continues to confess the same mortal sins each week and does not make any progress in rooting them out. The priest is then obligated to refuse him absolution. Holy Scripture tells us that after the first or second admonition, a brother who is erring should be avoided and referred to the Church. And Our Lord told his Apostles to shake the dust from their sandals and move on when those to whom they were preaching showed no signs of repentance and conversion.

Those not obeying the binding teachings of the Church cannot be considered Catholic even though they may be praying at home. Obedience regardless of the cost is the only thing that will save our souls. When online forums warn members not to read the presentation by others of Catholic truth, they stray inro the realm of “Catholic” cults. Allowing those believing themselves to be Catholic to “debate” the truth and viewing or attendance at debates forbidden by the Church is offensive to God. We tell Him in the Act of Faith that we “believe ALL the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou has revealed them” — but do we? We aver in our Act of Contrition that we detest our sins and will amend our lives — but do we really mean it? This is not a game and I am not the master of ceremonies here. It is now Passion Week, and if we do not do penance for our sins and truly convert, all of us shall perish.