|
Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is
"a word, deed or desire contrary to God's law," as stated above
(Question 71, Article 5). Now ignorance does not denote an
act, either internal or external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to
knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment
resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of
knowledge is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in
so far as it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being
voluntary, it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the
will, rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not
be a sin, but rather a result of sin.
Objection 4: Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor
does any sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain
in act. Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in
act, all its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance
is not a sin, unless perchance it be original sin.
Objection 5: Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be
sinning, as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is
continual in the one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance
would be continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance
would be a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.
On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance
deserves punishment, according to 1 Cor. 14:38: "If any man
know not, he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance is a sin.
I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience
denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge
about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense
Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On
the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack
of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know.
Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit,
without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act
rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of
faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is
bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are
other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is
not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and
contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is
evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or
do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence,
ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not
imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to
know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called
"invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this
reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in
our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that
no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible
ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but
not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question 71, Article
6, ad 1), when we say that sin is a "word, deed or desire," we
include the opposite negations, by reason of which omissions have the
character of sin; so that negligence, in as much as ignorance is a
sin, is comprised in the above definition of sin; in so far as one
omits to say what one ought, or to do what one ought, or to desire
what one ought, in order to acquire the knowledge which we ought to
have.
Reply to Objection 2: Although privation of grace is not a sin in
itself, yet by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, it
may have the character of sin, even as ignorance; nevertheless even
here there is a difference, since man can acquire knowledge by his
acts, whereas grace is not acquired by acts, but by God's favor.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as in a sin of transgression, the sin
consists not only in the act of the will, but also in the act willed,
which is commanded by the will; so in a sin of omission not only the
act of the will is a sin, but also the omission, in so far as it is in
some way voluntary; and accordingly, the neglect to know, or even
lack of consideration is a sin.
Reply to Objection 4: Although when the guilt has passed away
through repentance, the ignorance remains, according as it is a
privation of knowledge, nevertheless the negligence does not remain,
by reason of which the ignorance is said to be a sin.
Reply to Objection 5: Just as in other sins of omission, man sins
actually only at the time at which the affirmative precept is binding,
so is it with the sin of ignorance. For the ignorant man sins actually
indeed, not continually, but only at the time for acquiring the
knowledge that he ought to have.
|
|