198. Ignorance as a Cause of Sin: Three Questions

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Ignorance as a Per Accidens Cause of Sin #

Thomas distinguishes between per se and per accidens causation. Non-being cannot cause per se, but ignorance can cause per accidens by functioning as a removens prohibens—a removal of what prevents. Ignorance removes the knowledge that would otherwise prevent sinful action. This is distinct from efficient causation because it operates through absence rather than positive action.

The Nature of Ignorance #

Ignorance is a privation (privatio)—a lack of knowledge that someone is naturally apt to have and should have—rather than a simple negation. This distinction is crucial: not knowing the Pythagorean theorem is mere negation and not sinful; lacking knowledge one is obligated to possess is a privation that can become sinful through negligence.

Types of Ignorance #

Invincible Ignorance: Cannot be overcome through study or reasonable effort; is involuntary and therefore never constitutes sin; entirely excuses from responsibility.

Vincible Ignorance: Can be overcome through reasonable effort; may constitute a sin if it concerns things one is obligated to know; does not entirely excuse from sin because some voluntary element remains.

The Operative Syllogism and Ignorance #

Ignorance can affect the practical reasoning process at two points:

• Ignorance of the universal premise (e.g., “fornication is wrong”)
• Ignorance of the particular circumstance (e.g., “this act is fornication”)

Thomas illustrates this with Oedipus: he knew one should not kill one’s father and should not marry one’s mother, but was ignorant that the man blocking his way was his father and the woman was his mother.

Knowledge One is Obligated to Possess #

Thomas establishes that people are obligated to know:

• Universal precepts of the natural law
• Matters of faith (the Creed)
• Things pertaining to their particular state or office
• Things necessary to perform a suitable act

People are NOT obligated to know theorems of geometry or particular contingent facts unless relevant to their duty.

Negligence and Vincible Ignorance #

Vincible ignorance becomes sinful not through the ignorance itself, but through the negligence involved in failing to acquire necessary knowledge. This negligence is voluntary and constitutes the actual sin. Augustine’s definition of sin (“something said, done, or desired against the law of God”) must be understood to include omissions—things one ought to have said, done, or desired but failed to.

Partial vs. Total Excuse from Sin #

Ignorance only entirely excuses if it completely removes the voluntary character of the act. Ignorance that is:

• Indirectly voluntary (through negligence in learning) does not excuse
• Of circumstances that would not have prevented the will’s inclination to sin does not excuse
• Only a partial cause of sin does not entirely excuse

Example: If someone would commit adultery regardless, ignorance of the victim’s marital status does not entirely excuse because the will was already inclined to sin.

Key Arguments #

Article 1: Whether Ignorance is a Cause of Sin #

Objection 1: Non-being cannot be a cause of anything; ignorance is non-being of knowledge; therefore ignorance cannot be a cause of sin.

Objection 2: Causes of sin should pertain to conversion (what one turns toward), but ignorance pertains to turning away; therefore it cannot be a cause of sin.

Objection 3: The will only moves toward what is known; since ignorance removes knowledge, it cannot cause the will to act.

Thomas’s Resolution: Ignorance is a privation that functions as a removens prohibens—a per accidens cause that removes the knowledge preventing sin. The distinction between per se and per accidens causation is key: ignorance removes an impediment rather than directly producing the sinful act.

Article 2: Whether Ignorance is Itself a Sin #

Objection 1: Sin requires an act (said, done, or desired); ignorance is mere non-being and no act.

Objection 2: If ignorance is a sin, it must be voluntary; but then the sin consists in the will, not in ignorance itself.

Objection 3: Ignorance remains after penance while sin is removed; therefore ignorance is not a sin.

Objection 4: If ignorance were sin, the ignorant would continually sin as long as they remain ignorant, which is manifestly false.

Thomas’s Resolution: Ignorance is not a sin in itself. However, vincible ignorance of things one is obligated to know becomes sinful through negligence—the failure to acquire knowledge one should possess. The sin consists in the voluntary negligence, not in the ignorance per se. Augustine’s definition must be understood to include omissions. Invincible ignorance is never a sin because it is involuntary and beyond one’s power to overcome.

Article 3: Whether Ignorance Entirely Excuses from Sin #

Objection 1: Every sin is voluntary; ignorance causes the involuntary; therefore ignorance entirely excuses.

Objection 2: What is done outside one’s intention is done per accidens and does not have the character of sin.

Objection 3: Ignorance excludes the use of reason, which is necessary for sin; therefore ignorance wholly excuses.

Thomas’s Resolution: The key is whether the ignorance removes the voluntary character entirely. If some voluntary element remains, the excuse is only partial. Ignorance that is indirectly voluntary (through negligence in learning) does not excuse. Ignorance of a circumstance does not excuse if the will was already inclined to sin regardless of that circumstance. Only invincible ignorance or ignorance of what one is not bound to know entirely excuses. In the mad and the mindless, where reason is wholly excluded, ignorance entirely excuses from sin.

Important Definitions #

Ignorantia (Ignorance): The privation of knowledge that someone is naturally able to have and is obligated to possess.

Privatio (Privation): The absence of a quality or perfection that something is naturally apt to possess and ought to possess; distinguished from mere negation.

Negatio (Negation): Simple non-being without implication that something should be present.

Per se cause: A cause that directly produces an effect through its own nature.

Per accidens cause: An accidental cause that produces an effect through removal of an obstacle, not through direct action.

Removens prohibens: “Removal of what prevents”—a type of per accidens cause.

Vincible ignorance: Ignorance that can be overcome through study and reasonable effort.

Invincible ignorance: Ignorance that cannot be overcome despite reasonable effort; involuntary and never sinful.

Negligentia (Negligence): Failure to acquire knowledge or perform duties one is obligated to undertake; the voluntary element that makes vincible ignorance sinful.

Examples & Illustrations #

Oedipus #

Thomas uses Oedipus as the classical example: he knew one should not kill one’s father and should not marry one’s mother, but was ignorant that the man blocking his way was his father and the woman was his mother. This illustrates how ignorance of a particular circumstance, combined with knowledge of the universal principle, can result in act that would be sinful if done knowingly.

Operative Syllogism Structure #

• Universal premise: “Fornication is wrong”
• Particular premise: “This is fornication”
• Conclusion: Action

Ignorance can affect either premise.

The Pythagorean Theorem #

Berquist illustrates that not knowing the Pythagorean theorem is mere negation, not a privation, and therefore not a cause of sin. This shows the distinction between simple negation and privation.

Modern Application: Voting and Negligence #

Berquist applies the doctrine to voters who fail to inform themselves about candidates’ positions on grave moral issues like abortion. Such negligent ignorance is vincible and voluntary, and therefore does not excuse the voter from responsibility.

The Priest and the Dying Man #

A priest anoints a dying man. A bystander says, “Father, he didn’t believe in God.” The priest responds, “He does now.” This illustrates how even invincible ignorance may be addressed at the moment of death.

Teaching the Parables #

Berquist recounts his wife’s advice when teaching the parables: ask people what they think the meaning is before explaining it. The answers reveal how interpretation works without prior instruction.

Notable Quotes #

“Non-being is not able to be the cause of something per se, but it can be a cause per accidens as the removal of the one, what, of what is prohibiting it.”

“Ignorance is a privation of knowledge, right? When there’s lacking to someone the knowledge of those things which he is naturally apt to what? To know, huh?”

“Those without the knowledge of which he cannot, what? Exercise a, what? Suitable act, right? Whence all are held to know commonly those things which are of what? Faith, the creed, and the universal precepts of the what? Law.”

“The negligence of knowing or inconsideration is a, what, sin. It’s voluntary.”

Questions Addressed #

Does ignorance have a cause? #

Resolution: Yes, ignorance functions as a per accidens cause by removing what prevents sin (removens prohibens).

Is ignorance itself a sin? #

Resolution: Ignorance is not a sin in itself, but vincible ignorance of things one is obligated to know becomes sinful through the negligence involved in failing to acquire that knowledge.

Does ignorance entirely excuse from sin? #

Resolution: Ignorance entirely excuses only if it completely removes the voluntary character (invincible ignorance). Ignorance that is indirectly voluntary through negligence, or that does not prevent the will’s inclination to sin, does not entirely excuse.