Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)

Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)
The information in the stub, invincible error, is entirely within the invincible ignorance page's remit and should be covered there. There is no separate subject outside of that page, and a merger would benefit the reader in holding a fuller article in a single location. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment : which RS states that Invincible ignorance is a subclass or the Invincible error concept? If there is none, it is OR to state it is. Veverve (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have that backwards: firstly, the merge proposal is that invincible error be merged here, and this is because invincible error only exists as a concept within and related to the doctine of invincible ignorance. On sources, we don't look for sources that prove a negative, so the sources question is what are the sources that say that invincible error applies outside of the concept of invincible ignorance? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see in the sources in the articles any clear statement along the lines of An invincible error is an error commited while under invincible ignorance. Veverve (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are precisely two sources in that article, and these say:
 * An act done in invincible error, whether the latter regard the fact or the law, is never impeachable as sin. The reason is that, in this hypothesis, there is no knowledge of, and consequently no violation of evil.
 * And:
 * This invincible error is one that is indeed invincible at the moment, but one that subsequent enlightenment and information as to the actual facts will always immediately dispel.
 * So yes, both sources do intrinsically link invincible error with invincible ignorance. It is not clear at all what "invincible" would actually mean outside a concept of invincible ignorance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not really convinced. I think asking people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard would be a good idea. Veverve (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Further bit of evidence: the Catholic Catechism treats the two concepts as synonymous. E.g., "it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments" (§1790), and "if the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment" (§1793). — Brian (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another source to support the merger: the Encyclopedia of Catholicism (ed. Richard McBrien, 1995) includes an entry for "invincible ignorance" but not "invincible error." There is an entry on "error," which explains that error is a matter of "incorrect judgment regarding the meaning of the law or a mistake concerning the facts of the matter" and distinguishes error from ignorance. But the idea of "invincible error" never appears, which supports the nom to merge. — Brian (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A concept not being treated in a work does not mean that a concpet looking like it in said work is the same concept. Veverve (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have added: the end of the entry on "error" refers the reader to the entry on "ignorance." The connection isn't OR; it's very clear that error means "mistaken knowledge" and ignorance means "lack of knowledge." In any case, my main point was that, as the original nom suggested, "invincible error" really isn't a standalone category in Catholic moral thought. In fact, I'm having a hard time producing any good moral theology sources that even use the phrase "invincible error" apart from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, whereas the phrase "invincible ignorance" has been an entrenched part of the conversation since Abelard and Aquinas in the Middle Ages. // If those sources don't persuade, can you give me a better sense of what kind of thing you're looking for? — Brian (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe this will help! From Ignorance, Faith, and Conformity: Studies in Moral Theology, p. 26, written by Kenneth Kirk in 1925: "'Error' to St. Thomas (as to Alexander [of Hales]) is simply an enhanced form of ignorance. 'Error adds something to ignorance. Ignorance may exist without a definite judgment about the thing ignored it is then ignorance and not error: but when we pass a false judgment about things which we do not know, then our condition is properly called one of error.'" That seems to use the form you were asking for earlier: error is a subclass of ignorance, or ignorance to which something extra is added. So it makes sense, as per the original nom, to include "invincible error" (if such a category can even be shown to exist) within an article on the more basic concept of "invincible ignorance." — Brian (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, not to pile on, but that same conclusion is also supported by the Mortimer source already cited in the article, which includes its comments about error under the heading about ignorance. — Brian (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If those sources don't persuade, can you give me a better sense of what kind of thing you're looking for?: as I already wrote, any clear statement along the lines of An invincible error is an error commited while under invincible ignorance. No innuendo, not having to put puzzle pieces together; simply a clear definition of this kind. Veverve (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like I've given you that from several different sources at this point. Mortimer: "error is a form of ignorance." Kirk: "error is an enhanced form of ignorance." The catechism equates "invincible ignorance" with saying that "the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment." Multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias point you to "ignorance" if you look up "error." The sources are all focused on "invincible ignorance," because that's the notable category in moral theology; "invincible error" has no independent meaning, and indeed is rarely used at all, and when it is it's only used under the heading of invincible ignorance. We're not likely to find the exact sentence you want, because nobody cares enough about "invincible error" to stop to define it like that—which is exactly why it makes sense to merge these two articles. "Invincible error" does not need its own page at all. — Brian (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Both pages are obviously relying on newadvent, a pro-catholic website maintained by Kevin Knight. Nothing about it is academic, nor would I trust the citations within the website simply because those favor Catholicism. Trash website that's not WP:RS and would obviously deteriorate WP:NPOV within an article if used as a citation. I'd say delete both articles. And don't get me started with Mortimer's source, that page looks like it was made on a Windows 2000 in the same year. My Mac (2022) even marked it as an unsecured website. Jerium (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagree. The idea of "invincible ignorance" is a very well-established category in Catholic moral theology, and as such, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a perfectly good source of information about it. The fact that the digital version of this encyclopedia is hosted on a "pro-catholic website" is no reason to discount it, any more than it would make sense to discount Aquinas's Summa Theologiae because a digital version is hosted there. —Brian (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My statement above, pointing out the fact that both articles relay on a single source (newadvent), is a point proven by your comment. So far, no adequate academic source has been provided to support and expand either article; and newadvent is not sufficient for a stand-alone article; it is factual void and contradicting as the claim that the "idea of "invincible ignorance" is a very well-established category in Catholic moral theology" when there is only a supposedly reliable-single source. Jerium (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending New Advent itself as a WP:RS! But the Catholic Encyclopedia itself is a reliable source; it's a 15-volume encyclopedia written and edited by academics. The encyclopedia is in the public domain, and a digital version is hosted by New Advent. I agree that a proper article on invincible ignorance ought to include many other sources besides one old encyclopedia, but this encyclopedia at least belongs on the list of sources. In any case, like I say, it won't be hard to come up with other academic sources that talk about invincible ignorance. It's super common. The encyclopedia article itself cites several, although they're all early 20th c. (which shouldn't disqualify them). When I get back to my office tomorrow, I'll try to remember to pull a couple of more recent ones in case it helps to satisfy the concern. —Brian (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable when it comes to the inner working of the Catholic Church and its beliefs. Once what is says is outside of this scope, clear attribution of their claim is needed.
 * As for sites not being fancy or being difficult to use or navigate, it is not an argument for reliability of the content they host.
 * Veverve (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes Mortimer source reliable? The website claims the content was published by A&C, but the site itself can't support that claim because it was put together on Instagram back in 2003. Per WP:INSTAGRAM, we should be cautious about official websites being used as a reliable source, but Mortimer's work is not even being hosted on Instagram or any other official website. I don't beleive you know who is hosting the page, and it's quite obvious that it is not by any major publisher or any at all; and you say it's a reliable source? Anyone can make that claim with this website, and that shouldn't be the case when it comes to church theology. Jerium (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this input, but isn't this discussion parallel to the merge proposal? Maybe a new section could be created for that. The question in this section is whether Invincible error should be merged with Invincible ignorance (being a term only used within discussion of that doctrine, and having insufficient information to be said about it to merit its own article). Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "by Paul Ingram", not by Instagram.
 * You can check whether the restranscription is faithful or not, with the original printed book.
 * Mortimer was a professor of theology at the University of Oxford. Veverve (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge. I'd support the merger. The current sources make it pretty clear that the error in invincible error means epistemic error. There are some philosophers who try to hold a firm line between "error" (having a false belief) and "ignorance" (lack of a true belief), but as far as I know that distinction has never entered into the Catholic moral theological category of "invincible ignorance/error." I might be able to dig up some sources to support the point, if we need it, but I think the Catholic Encyclopedia is good enough to be getting on with. —Brian (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge: Based on the current sources, it would be borderline synthesis to combine the two concepts into a single article. Both articles are closely derived from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which treats the two subjects separately. My concern is that the division between invincible error and ignorance would become muddied if merged, because they are distinct but closely-related concepts. Additional sources that clearly link the two subjects and the relationship would be needed. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge : per Zfish118 and what I have stated above.
 * Veverve (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * comment It is incorrect to say that the Catholic encyclopaedia treats both subjects seperately. The catholic encyclopaedia entry is for error and not invincible error and our only explanation on that page references invincible ignorance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge. "Error ...is in one way or another the product of ignorance." "Ignorance" is potential; "Error" is kinetic. See CCC 1790. (I would like to thank the individual who went out of their way to give us all a demonstration of "invincible error".) Thank you. Manannan67 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At the eleventh hour, some thoughts in no particular order:
 * It is not at all clear that Invincible error meets criteria for a standalone article. Two sources use the phrase. This discussion (and the below section) have unearthed no small number of sources on Catholic theology. All discuss the general Error (Catholicism), and few Invincible error.
 * So the stub should really go to AfD or if no one here strenously objects, be WP:PRODded. A merge may lend undue weight. As a possibly nonexistent or at least insignificant subject, there exists no obvious redirect target. We could redirect it to Error (Catholicism)...if it existed. And as evidenced above, the idea that invincible error is related to invincible ignorance is contested.
 * Having one short article on Vincible ignorance and another on Invincible ignorance looks to this uninformed observer a bit like having an article on Exonym and another on endonym instead of Exonym and endonym. A merge of the ignorances into Ignorance (Christianity) may render this discussion moot.
 * This would also be a great opportunity to give the lay reader some general background—how the concept has evolved through history and more importantly, why it matters in Christian theology. Why do theologists care so much about ignorance? Why is distinguishing different kinds useful?
 * If the ignorances were to be merged (sorry about the tangent), we could redirect the dab at Invincible ignorance to Ignorance (Christianity) and just hatnote the fallacy page. WikiNav data for reference. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) and 06:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for this. I find myself in broad agreement with you on the issues. I have asked for a neutral close of this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, is this a support or oppose of the merge as proposed? AfD was definitely something I was considering if the merge failed. I think PROD would be contested so I would take to AfD. I think the other merge proposal makes sense too, but this one needs closure first. In favour of agreeing merge, I would just note that (1) AfD may well result in a merge decision anyway, and (2) I don't think there would be undue weight in this article on invincible error if this article were also expanded as you say. However, you appear to be leaning towards opposing merge. As closure is imminent, I think your !vote (either way) would aid the closer. Thanks again for your input. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed and take to AfD. I do think considering the notability issues, we need wider consensus. Merging results in a redirect that must be preserved so the page history can provide attribution. If AfD results in consensus that page should not even exist, having an undeletable redirect doesn't make sense.
 * If the AfD results in a merge to Ignorance (Christianity), that's fine. At the risk of introducing too many choices, we can see in that discussion if a merge to Catholic hamartiology works since some sources (like the ones listed in the below section) link error to sin. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Helpful thoughts, @Rotideypoc41352! I'd also support an AfD or PROD here, and I'd definitely support a merger of "Vincible and invincible ignorance." I don't think a more general Ignorance (Christianity) article would work, though, just because I don't think there's a notable Christian POV about ignorance in a general sense. The idea of in/vincible ignorance is just meant to answer a very specific ethical question: are people blameworthy for doing something they didn't know was wrong? I also wouldn't support a merger to Catholic hamartiology, because although the category has slightly more prominence there, maybe, it's present too in Protestant moral theology. (In the resources below, both Kirk and Mortimer are Protestant writers.) —Brian (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, ! As a summary for myself, if this merge discussion closes as no consensus or not merged, Sirfurboy (no ping because seem to be watching the thread) will open an AfD discussion for Invincible error. That discussion can determine if the article should just be deleted. It can also see the close here is supported by wider consensus, or if there is consensus for a merge to, for example, Christian views on sin. Tangentially, we may be able to boldly merge the ignorances into Vincible and invincible ignorance—then open a discussion if that merge is contested. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Regarding the close here, I am not sure if I can poke someone to get this closed - I requested close a few days ago - or maybe we can just agree this is "no consensus" (3 for merge, 3 oppose) and I can withdraw the proposal to allow the next step. Any objections to the latter? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Resources for future editors
I've been poking around the literature on this topic in connection with the merger discussion above, and although I don't have time to revise the article myself right now, I wanted to leave these sources for future editors interested in making improvements.


 * Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2.1, q. 76 (esp. arts. 2--3).
 * R. C. Mortimer, The Elements of Moral Theology (1947), esp. ch. 5 on conscience.
 * Kenneth Kirk, Ignorance, Faith, and Conformity (1925), entire, but esp. ch. 1 which provides a history of the origin of the concept of invincible ignorance.
 * Block, Elizabeth Sweeny. “White Privilege and the Erroneous Conscience: Rethinking Moral Culpability and Ignorance.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 39, no. 2 (2019): 357–74.
 * McWhorter, Matthew R. “Aquinas and the Sins of Ignorance.” Nova et Vetera 14, no. 1 (2016): 271–93.
 * The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, s.v., "ignorance." (An entry for "invincible ignorance" just refers back to the entry on "ignorance." There is no entry for "invincible error." "Error" refers the reader to "ignorance" and "sin(s).")

And here is the entry on invincible ignorance from Richard McBrien, ed., The Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995), reproduced in its entirety:


 * invincible ignorance, a type of ignorance that cannot be removed even with diligence. Discussions of invincible ignorance are concerned with excusing a person from moral responsibility for performing an action that is objectively morally wrong. Ignorance of this kind does not imply subjective fault because the agent is either not aware of a moral obligation that applies in the situation or is unaware of the circumstances or conditions of the action. If ignorance remains after making every reasonable and prudent effort to discover the moral obligations and circumstances that apply to the action, then the person is inculpably ignorant. Several factors determine if a reasonable effort was made, e.g., the seriousness of the action, the availability of resources to consult, and the ability of the person to understand the circumstances of the act. Because a person cannot will what is unknown, the action that results from invincible ignorance is involuntary and, therefore, sinless.

— Brian (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

AfD
Just a courtesy note to everyone who took part in the above merge discussion, that I nominated Invincible error for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Invincible error Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)