Ignorance

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Latinin, not, andgnarus, knowing)

Ignorance is lack ofknowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of ourintellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself. In this article it is theethical aspect and consequences of ignorance that are directly under consideration. From this point of view, since onlyvoluntary and free acts are imputable, ignorance which either destroys or lessens the first-named characteristic is a factor to be reckoned with. It is customary then to narrow somewhat the definition already given of it. It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want ofknowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of aperson to possess it may be called nescience.

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the termsinvincible andvincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when aperson is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible andobligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to thepope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudentperson would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that theobligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as theduty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the neededknowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.

The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.

We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sensevoluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes anyvoluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements ofdoctrine.

Invincible ignorance, whether of thelaw or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludessin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom isvoluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of thenatural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching ofSt. Thomas, is nottrue of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these aperson may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded assinful. The perverse temper ofsoul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some wayvoluntary, 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 morevoluntary. 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.

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of aperson intact, still it does make the act lessvoluntary than if it were done with fullknowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Heretheologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of theChurch from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect toknow the teachings of theChurch was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of thelaw or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of thelaw or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack ofknowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It istrue then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievouslysinful excuses, because for the incurring of censurescontumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about theduties of our state of life or thetruths offaithnecessary forsalvation is, of course,sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy ofbaptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs thematter and form and has the intention of doing what theChurch does.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT